Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV31073, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31073    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Moses Albarran (“Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Defendant Star Growers Nursery, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 5, 2021.  Plaintiff asserts that as of filing these motions on March 9, 2022, and despite an extension of time to respond and an attempt to meet and confer, Defendant had not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

On August 12, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition arguing that Plaintiff failed to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse, and that Plaintiff failed to make a good faith effort to informally resolve these issues.  However, the Court’s Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures requires parties to participate in an IDC prior to the hearing on a motion to compel further responses, not initial responses, which are what are at issue here.  Further, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to filing motions to compel initial responses, and in any event, Plaintiff attached proof of a meet and confer effort with Defendant prior to filing to the motions to which there is no evidence Defendant responded.  (Mot. Exh. B.)

Defendant further asserts that Defendant served responses to the subject discovery “on or about March 9, 2022” with “verification to follow.”  (See e.g. Opp. to Mot. to Compel Form Interrogatories at p. 4:1, 4:4-5.)  However, although Defendant states that copies of the discovery served on Plaintiff are attached to each opposition, there are no attachments or other evidence attached to the oppositions.  Defendant, therefore, fails to submit any evidence showing that responses have in fact been served on Plaintiff.  Similarly, if responses have been served on Plaintiff, the oppositions do not clearly show on what date or that verifications were served on Plaintiff.  (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348 [an unverified response is tantamount to no response at all].) 

Because there is no evidence that responses have been served on Plaintiff at this time, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within ten days.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b).)  If at the hearing the parties represent that verified responses have been received by Plaintiff, the Court will be inclined to find the request to compel responses moot. 

Sanctions are mandatory and warranted given there is no evidence that responses were served prior to Plaintiff filing the motions.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  The Court awards Plaintiff one hour for preparing each form motion to compel [three hours] and one hour to appear at the hearing- but awards this time once- all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $800 in attorney fees.  Further, the court awards Plaintiff three motion filing fees of $60, or $180 total, as costs. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record.  Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Defendant directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant’s attorney of record only.  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $980, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 31^st day of August 2022