| Re:
|
Clark et al v. County of Fresno et al.?
Superior Court Case No. 14CECG03810 |
| Hearing Date:
|
December 21, 2017 (Dept. 501) |
| Motion: | Compel plaintiff Travis Clark to provide initial responses to form interrogatories, set two, request for production of documents, set one, deem request for admissions, set one, admitted and for monetary and terminating sanctions as to plaintiffs Travis Clark and Christine Clark |
Tentative Ruling:
The court notes that the moving party scheduled one motion. In actuality the moving papers consist of at least three motions combined into one set of papers.? In the future the moving attorney is to properly calendar the proper number of motions.
To grant defendants? motion to compel Travis Clark to provide initial responses to form interrogatories, set two.? Code of Civil Procedure ?2030.290(b). Travis Clark to provide complete verified responses to form interrogatories, set two, without objection within 10 days after service of this order.
To deny defendants? motion to compel Travis Clark to provide initial responses to request for production of documents, set two.
To deny defendants? motion that the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted as to plaintiff Travis Clark.
To grant defendants? motion for monetary sanctions in part. Travis Clark is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $330.00 to Weakley & Arendt, LLP within 30 days after service of this order. Code of Civil Procedure ??2030.290(c).
To deny defendants? motion for terminating sanctions.
Explanation:?
At the time the discovery at issue in this motion was propounded Travis Clark was represented.? The address of record for the attorney was 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Ste. 1170, Irvine, CA 92618.? The POS for the form interrogatories has this address, however the POS for the request for documents and request for admissions has the address as 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Ste. 1170, Irvine, CA 92616.? After the substitution of attorney was filed the defendants did send a letter to Travis Clark as his address of record regarding the discovery, however they did not include the discovery with the letter and did not reserve the discovery.? There is no evidence that the request for admission and request for production of documents was ever properly served on plaintiff Travis Clark.
The motions to compel discovery and deem requests for admissions admitted are clearly directed to plaintiff Travis Clark yet the moving party seeks monetary sanctions against Christine Clark.? This is impermissible.? Further, there is no evidence of proper service of this motion on Christine Clark.? The address provided for Christine Clark in the substitution of attorney form filed with the court and served on defendant is 5216 E. Hoxie Fresno, CA 93725.? This motion was served at 5217 E. Hoxie Fresno, CA 93725.
The notice of motion asserts that the plaintiffs have failed or refused to comply with discovery request served on them and thus terminating sanctions are warranted.? There is no evidence before this court that Christine Clark has failed to respond to discovery.? See Decl. of Dillahunty which references only discovery served on Travis Clark. There is no showing that any sanction, monetary or terminating, is warranted as to Christine.? There is evidence that plaintiff Travis Clark has engaged in misuse of the discovery process.? However, at this point terminating sanctions are not warranted. In determining which, if any, sanctions are appropriate, the court is also guided by public policy regarding discovery.? The main purpose of discovery sanctions is not to punish, but to compel the party to provide the information sought, thus furthering ?the efficient, economical disposition of cases. . .on the merits?.? (Fairfield v. Sup. Ct. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 119, emphasis in original.).? Plus any sanction which places a party in a better position than he would have been in had the order been obeyed is suspect.? (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.? The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling??????????????????? MWS ????????????????????????????????12/20/17
Issued By:??? ______________________________ on _________________.
(Judge?s initials)???????????????????????????? (Date)