Opinion
G059926
01-31-2022
STEVEN ADAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STN BUILDERS, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
Jerome D. Stark for Defendant and Appellant. Krutcik Law Group and James A. Krutcik for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2018-01022651, Ronald L. Bauer, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Orange Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Jerome D. Stark for Defendant and Appellant.
Krutcik Law Group and James A. Krutcik for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O'LEARY, P.J.
This matter arises out of a personal injury case by Steven Adams against STN Builders, Inc. (STN) for damages resulting from a fall. STN appeals the trial court's order awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,150 in favor of Adams on two motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and production of documents. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the monetary sanctions, we affirm the order.
FACTS
Adams filed a complaint alleging STN defectively constructed stairs on a residential patio, causing him to fall and become severely injured. During the course of discovery in the action, Adams served STN with form interrogatories and requests for admission (collectively referred to as the first set of discovery). The first set of discovery was served in July 2020 via e-mail on counsel for STN, apparently due to COVID-19 protocols.
In early November 2020, Adams served a set of requests for production and special interrogatories (collectively referred to as the second set of discovery). The second set of discovery was also sent by e-mail, due to COVID-19 protocols. Adams sent several e-mails to STN to urge compliance. STN did not provide any discovery responses. In fact, STN concedes it received the e-mail attaching the second set of discovery in early November. However, STN apparently did not open the correspondence. STN asserts it "mistook" the e-mail as "another meet and confer" letter regarding the first set of discovery.
STN claims it only became aware of the second set of discovery through a January 7, 2021, meet and confer letter. At that time, STN searched its e-mail and found the second set of discovery. On January 11, 2021, Adams sent another meet and confer letter and indicated he would pursue motions to compel.
The next day, Adams filed and served motions to compel the second set of discovery. Adams sought sanctions in the amount of $3,825 for each motion. This amount was based upon the amount of time spent trying to meet and confer, preparing the motions, and attending the hearing.
On January 22, 2021, Adams sent an e-mail to STN, stating he, "would be willing to resolve the [discovery motions] and discuss the [s]anctions issues," as long as STN served full, complete, and verified discovery answers and production no later than Tuesday, January 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. and that STN would provide dates their representatives were available for deposition. STN served responses to the first set of discovery at 12:37 p.m. on January 26, 2021. STN also served copies of the blueprint plans for the stairs and patio built by STN at 2:33 p.m. that same day, apparently in response to the requests for production. In response, Adams stated he would not take the motions to compel off calendar because the responses (only one of which was served before the deadline) did not offer "a compromise on the [$3,825 in] sanctions" sought by Adams's motion and failed to offer deposition dates.
The trial court's February 11, 2021, order determined the motions to compel were reasonable and necessary. Accordingly, it "awarded sanctions in the amount of $3,075 per [discovery motion] for a total of $6,150, payable by [STN] forthwith."
DISCUSSION
STN argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $6,150 in monetary sanctions in favor of Adams on two motions to compel responses. STN's argument lacks merit.
If a party fails to serve a timely response, and the propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the trial court must impose a monetary sanction against the delinquent party unless that party acted with "substantial justification" or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) An order directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party, where the amount exceeds $5,000, is directly appealable. (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) We review an order imposing sanctions for an abuse of discretion, resolving all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the ruling, and "reversing 'only if the trial court's action was "'"arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical."'" [Citation.]" (Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 853, 878.)
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
"The Civil Discovery Act provides litigants with the right to broad discovery. In general, 'any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (§ 2017.010.) 'In establishing the statutory methods of obtaining discovery, it was the intent of the Legislature that discovery be allowed whenever consistent with justice and public policy. [Citation.] The statutory provisions must be liberally construed in favor of discovery and the courts must not extend the statutory limitations upon discovery beyond the limits expressed by the Legislature.' [Citation.]" (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) The trial court may intervene in the discovery process when a party '"fails to serve a timely response.' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 403.)
STN admits it neglected to open, and thus failed to respond to, discovery before the statutory deadlines. STN complains the discovery was only sent by e-mail and should also have been sent by U.S. mail. However, the first set of discovery was served via e-mail, apparently due to COVID-19 protocols. STN does not assert e-mail service was improper, or that it was not received. To the contrary, the record demonstrates the second set of discovery was properly served via e-mail in early November 2020, but STN failed to open the e-mail or its attachments.
The record is replete with Adams's meet and confer efforts prior to filing the motions to compel. In fact, in one last attempt to resolve the issue before hearing, Adams sent STN a January 22, 2021, e-mail requesting full responses by January 26, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The letter also requested deposition dates and a compromise on the monetary sanctions, as the motions were already pending. STN sent responses to the first set of discovery on January 26, 2021, at 12:37 p.m. It produced documents at 2:33 p.m. (after the deadline) that same day. Those 33 minutes might have been forgivable, but STN did not send other responses, offer any dates for depositions, or offer a compromise on the sanctions. Adams reasonably rejected STN's efforts as failing to comply with the terms of his earlier letter.
Given STN's failure to respond to discovery in a timely manner, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions. STN failed to demonstrate it acted with "substantial justification" or that the sanction would otherwise be unjust or unreasonable. (§§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Furthermore, there was ample evidence supporting the amount of the sanctions, based upon counsel's efforts to meet and confer, draft the motions, and attend the hearing.
Finally, while we agree with STN that Adams's briefing on appeal used sparse legal and factual citations, it does nothing to help STN's case. STN, as the appellant, bears the burden to demonstrate error by the trial court. Respondent bears no such burden. Indeed, although the California Rules of Court require that every respondent "must" file a respondent's brief (Rule 8.200(a)(2)), failing to do so simply means that the court will proceed to "decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) Even without adequate briefing, Adams's arguments on appeal fail based on the record, his opening brief, and oral argument.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondent shall recover his costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, J. GOETHALS, J.