Christian v. Westmont Living, Inc., et al

Case Number

25CV00586

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests for Production, Set 3; Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff David Christian: Anthony C. Kastenek, Philip Alexander, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc.

                                   

For Defendant Westmont Living, Inc., Mariposa Operating Company, LP and Ramon Mendoza Jr.: Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Bryan Swaim, Sheila Wang, Bordin Semmer LLP

RULING

For all the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (set two), and motion to compel further responses to requests for production (set three), are denied as moot, in part, as to Plaintiff’s request for an order to compel further responses. As to Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions in part and awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,650 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Ramon Mendoza Jr. and his counsel of record. Sanctions are payable on or before December 8, 2025.

Background

On January 1, 2025, Plaintiff David Christian filed this action against Defendants Westmont Living, Inc., Mariposa Operating Company, LP, and Ramon Mendoza Jr. (Mendoza), alleging two causes of action for wrongful death and survival action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34. (Complaint, ¶¶ 18-32.) As alleged in the complaint, Defendant Mendoza was making a left-hand turn onto State Street from Plaza Lane and hit a pedestrian, decedent Edward Milton Fish. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 17.) Decedent was transported by ambulance to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and succumbed to his injuries on March 9, 2024. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 17.) Decedent’s brother, David Christian, brought this action against Defendant Mendoza, Mendoza’s employer and the owner of the vehicle Mendoza was driving. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2-17.) Plaintiff filed suit in his capacity as a successor in interest of decedent’s estate and in his personal capacity. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2-3, 10, 19, 29-30, 31.)

On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel against Defendant Mendoza pertaining to Plaintiff’s second set of special interrogatories and third set of requests for production. There are 21 special interrogatories at issue in the motion to compel further responses to the second set of special interrogatories (SI Motion). The SI Motion is supported by a declaration from counsel (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion). These interrogatories seek information pertaining to Defendant’s cellular telephone carriers, account holders and phone numbers at the time of the incident, outgoing and incoming calls, text messages and video messages within one hour of the incident, and whether various cell phone applications were downloaded to his phone at the time of the incident. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)

There are 12 requests for production at issue in the motion to compel further responses to the third set of requests for production (RFP Motion). The RFP is supported by a declaration from counsel (Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion). These requests seek cellular telephone records including phone calls, text messages and video messages, for the period within one hour of the incident as well as the day before the incident. (Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff served the special interrogatories and requests for production at issue on July 30, 2025. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1; Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) On August 27, 2025, Defendant Mendoza served responses to the special interrogatories and requests for production containing only objections. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 3, Ex. 2; Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion, ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) The parties exchanged meet and confer letters on September 4-5, 2025. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 3-4.) Defendant did not offer to supplement his initial responses at that time. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 5, Ex. 4.)

On November 5, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition to the SI Motion and RFP Motion. On November 6, 2025, Defendant filed an amended opposition (Am. Opp.) indicating he had served supplemental responses to the special interrogatories at issue and all but three requests for production at issue. (Am. Opp., p. 1.). Defendant’s counsel attached the supplemental responses as exhibits to her declaration (Mendoza Decl. ISO Am. Opp.) supporting Defendant’s amended opposition. (Mendoza Decl. ISO Am. Opp., ¶¶ 3-7, Ex. 1.)

Defendant argues in his amended opposition that, except for the three requests for production to which he did not respond, the pending motions are moot considering the supplemental responses. (Am. Opp., pp. 1-2.) Defendant argues that three of the requests for production improperly seek confidential information unrelated to the issues in the case. (Am. Opp., pp. 2-3.)

On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the SI Motion and RFP Motion. Plaintiff acknowledges that supplemental responses were served but argues that that the supplemental responses and document production are still not sufficient. (Reply, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff also argues that the opposition brief was not timely filed. (Reply, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s dilatory discovery conduct has caused delays in moving the case forward. (Reply, p. 5.)

Analysis

The Court has substantial discretion when a party has served supplemental responses before the hearing on a motion to compel. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [Sinaiko].) “Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial Court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial Court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial Court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

There are 33 discovery requests at issue in the SI Motion and RFP Motion. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1; Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Defendant appears to have served verified, supplemental responses to 30 of these requests on November 5, 2025. (Mendoza Decl. ISO Am. Opp., ¶¶ 3-7, Ex. 1; Am. Opp., pp. 1-3.) The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff contends some of the supplemental responses are not sufficient. Though issues remain, considering the totality of the circumstances present here, the Court at this stage of the proceedings denies the motions, in part, as to Plaintiff’s requests for an order to compel further responses. Any disputes regarding Defendant’s supplemental responses to interrogatory numbers 54-74, supplemental responses to request for production numbers 42, 44, 46 and 48-52, or request for production numbers 43, 45, and 47 to which Defendant did not serve supplemental responses, may be raised in a future motion, if appropriate, provided the parties fully meet and confer in good faith.

As to the requested monetary sanctions, “[t]he Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery [¶] [m]aking, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery [¶] and [m]aking an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).) “The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process … pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The Court determines that monetary sanctions are appropriate because Defendant did not serve substantive response to Plaintiff’s discovery served on July 30, 2025, until November 5, 2025, after the SI Motion and RFP Motion were filed. (Mendoza Decl. ISO Am. Opp., ¶¶ 3-7, Ex. 1; Am. Opp., pp. 1-3.) The Court awards monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,650 based on ten hours of attorney time at $250 per hour plus $120 in filing fees. (Kastenek Decl. ISO SI Motion, ¶ 7; (Kastenek Decl. ISO RFP Motion, ¶ 7.) The Court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the Court.