On 09/19/2017 JASMA GARRISON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSE EFRAIN MANZANARES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
EDWARD B. MORETON
MANZANAREZ JOSE EFRAIN
DOES 1 TO 50
SUNBELT RENTALS INC.
O.S. RICHARDSON INC.
RICHARDSON EQUIPMENT RENTALS INC.
MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.
FARZAM JOSEPH S. ESQ.
HERZOG VANESSA K.
CONSTANTINIDES STRATTON P.
8/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)
7/9/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND ALL RELATED DATES; PROPOSED ORDER
4/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19) OF 04/17/2020
1/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RE...)
1/23/2020: Notice of Ruling
1/21/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND ALL RELATED DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STRATTON P. CONSTANTINI
1/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIA...)
1/14/2020: Notice of Ruling
12/12/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
12/12/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE
12/12/2019: Separate Statement
11/8/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts
10/2/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts
7/16/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL
5/13/2019: Request for Dismissal
3/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service
3/6/2019: Proof of Personal Service
10/1/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
Hearing04/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted MatterRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re Motion to Comply with Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter Re Motion to Comply with Court Order) of 08/05/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Taken under SubmissionRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Jasma Garrison (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation And Order); Filed by Jose Efrain Manzanarez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Jose Efrain Manzanarez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jasma Garrison (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Jasma Garrison (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jasma Garrison (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Jasma Garrison (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC676337 Hearing Date: August 04, 2020 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
JOSE EFRAIN MANZANARES,
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES
August 4, 2020
On September 19, 2017, plaintiff Jasma Garrison filed this action against Defendant Jose Efrain Manzanares arising from a September 19, 2015 motor vehicle collision. On January 15, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel further discovery responses and imposed sanctions on Plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the sanctions but did not provide further responses as ordered by the Court.
Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s January 15, 2020 Order. Defendant also requests issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. Defendant further requests monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,530 to be paid by Plaintiff and counsel of record.
Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)
When imposing sanctions, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.)
Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)
As an initial matter, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s January 15 2020 Order. No such statute in the Discovery Act provides the Court with the authority to “compel compliance” with a previously-issued discovery order. Indeed, Defendant’s motion cites to none.
Monetary, Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions
The moving party need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201; Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227.)
Defendant’s request for sanctions is deficient because Defendant did not include evidence showing that the responses that were served were insufficient. Defendant actually includes correspondence between counsel showing that discovery responses were served, but no evidence that the responses served did not comply with the January 15, 2020 Order. (See Declaration of Stratton P. Constantinides, Exs. B-F.) Furthermore, a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions must be accompanied by a¿separate document¿setting forth the particular discovery requests at issue, the responses thereto, and the reasons why such sanctions should be imposed. (CRC 3.1345(a)(7).)
Defendant’s request for monetary, issue, and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.
The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence above, the Court notes that on July 9, 2020, a stipulation was filed to continue trial and trial-related dates. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has expressed disinterest in prosecuting this action.
Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Dated this 4th day of August 2020
Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC676337 Hearing Date: January 15, 2020 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Plaintiff filed this action on September 19, 2017 alleging damages arising from a motor vehicle accident on September 19, 2015. On March 14, 2019, Defendant served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission. Defendant gave Plaintiff several extensions of time to respond. On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff served verified responses. The parties spent months meeting and conferring. On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff served unverified further responses. At an IDC on November 8, 2019, the parties reached an agreement without court involvement.
Defendant now contends Plaintiff did not provide verifications or further responses as they had agreed. Defendant filed four motions to compel on December 12, 2019. Plaintiff did not file oppositions. The motions to compel are scheduled for hearing on January 15, 16, and 17, 2020. All four motions will be heard on January 15. The Court rules as follows:
Nos. 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 10.1, 13.1, 13.2, 17.1: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified further responses to these form interrogatories within 20 days of the date of this order.
No. 1: The motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff apparently was in another car accident earlier in 2015. Information about her injuries, if any, from that accident could be related to or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence about the injuries she sustained in the later accident. Accordingly, within 20 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is to serve a verified further response concerning treatment or examinations she received from September 19, 2010 to the present concerning the body parts at issue in this case. Defendant has not shown that information about treatment or examinations unrelated to the body parts at issue are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
No. 2: The motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is to serve a verified further response providing the information about non-privileged conversations.
Requests for Production
Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 12, 22, 25, 33, 35, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified further responses to these requests for production and produce responsive documents within 20 days of the date of this order. To the extent Plaintiff is withholding documents as privileged or protected by the work product doctrine, Plaintiff may continue to withhold those documents, but must serve a privilege log within 20 days of the date of this order.
Requests for Admission
Nos. 28, 30: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified further responses to these requests for admission within 20 days of the date of this order.
Defendant requests sanctions of $2,910, $3,290, $3290, and $3,290 for the four motions for a total of $12,780, representing 66 hours of work. This amount is excessive. The time is duplicative, covers meeting and conferring that Defendant would need to have done even if the disputes had been resolved, and includes time for non-existent oppositions and replies. The four motions were largely duplicative and contained pages of general law. The Court awards $1,760 in sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.