Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STLC04332, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04332    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendants Antoine Deon Jackson and Tashiera Caver (“Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiff Taje Davis (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendants seek monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (c).) Further, “[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).)

Requests for Production

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).) Further, “[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).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendants served Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on December 11, 2023. (Wang Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Defendants granted multiple extensions and responses were due by March 24, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff served hybrid responses that included objections and responses. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. D.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not served verifications for the discovery.

When hybrid responses (objections and responses) have been timely served, the responses that contain only objections do not require a verification (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) However, here, the objections do not appear to have been timely served and are therefore waived.

As to the substantive responses, “[t]he omission of the verification in the portion of the response containing fact-specific responses . . . renders that portion of the response untimely and therefore only creates a right to move for orders and sanctions . . . as to those responses but does not result in a waiver of the objections made.” (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 657–58.)  

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)¿

Therefore, the motions to compel are granted.  

Defendants also requests $1,935 in monetary sanctions for each of the three motions, against Plaintiff and counsel of record. This represents an hourly rate of $215. (Wang Decl. ¶ 11.) The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion, lack of opposition, and the fact counsel can appear at the hearing remotely. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $967.50 (1.5 hour of attorney time for each motion). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED. Plaintiff Taje Davis shall provide verified responses, without objections, within 10 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $967.50. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendants within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.