Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV03853, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03853    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Juan Jose Oreallana (“Plaintiff”) filed this against Defendants Jose Ivan Canales Valladares (“Valladares”) and N. Montoya Trucking, Inc. (“Montoya Trucking”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, against Valladares.  Plaintiff further moves to deem Plaintiff’s request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Valladares.[1]  Lastly, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, against Montoya Trucking.  Each motion is made on the basis that no verified responses were served.  Valladares filed an omnibus opposition to the motions to compel responses and a separate opposition to the motion to deem RFAs admitted against him.  Montoya Trucking filed an opposition to the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories against it.  Any reply to the oppositions was due on or before February 10, 2023.  As of February 15, 2023, no reply has been filed.   

            a. Motions to Compel and Deem Admitted Against Valladares

Plaintiff propounded the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs on Valladares on May 3, 2022.  Plaintiff states that after granting multiple extensions to Valladares to serve responses, responses were due on August 22, 2022.  Plaintiff asserts that on August 22, 2022, Valladares served responses with objections, which had been waived, and without verifications.  Plaintiff contends that as of filing the motions, and despite an attempt to meet and confer, Valladares has not provided verified responses to the outstanding discovery.   

In opposition to the motions, Valladares asserts that he served timely objections to the discovery responses, and Valladares contends that he has now served verified responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs.  Valladares argues that because he served hybrid responses that included timely objections and substantive responses, the objections were not waived. 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff does not establish that Valladares waived all objections to the subject discovery.  The email communications submitted by Plaintiff concerning the extensions granted to Valladares to serve responses do not state that Valladares had waived any objections, or that the extensions were being granted conditioned on a waiver of objections.  Valladares’s responses to the subject discovery each consist of “hybrid response[s] containing objections and fact-specific responses.”  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

[T]here is no need to verify that portion of the response containing the objections. Thus, if the response is served within the statutory time period, that portion of the response must be considered timely notwithstanding the lack of verification. The omission of the verification in the portion of the response containing fact-specific responses merely 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.

(Id. at 657-58 [footnotes omitted].) 

Although Valladares did not waive the objections by failing to serve verifications with the responses, the portion of the responses containing a fact-specific response were untimely.  The unverified responses were tantamount to no response at all.  (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348.)  Nonetheless, Valladares has now provided verifications to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs.  Therefore, the Court finds that the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted against Valladares are moot in light of the verifications served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Valladares acted with substantial justification in opposing the motions to compel because Plaintiff’s position that Valladares had waived objections was incorrect and because Valladares served responses by the deadline granted by Plaintiff.  Therefore, no sanctions are awarded in connection with the motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and RPDs.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  However, as to Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted, “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (CCP § 2033.280(c).)  Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing the motion to deem admitted at the requested rate $200 per hour, for a total of $200 in attorney fees.  Further, Plaintiff is awarded the motion filing fee of $60 as costs.   

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Valladares and Valladares’s attorney of record.  Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Valladares personally.  Sanctions are imposed against Valladares’s attorney of record only.  Valladares’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $260.00, within twenty days.

b. Motion to Compel Responses Against Montoya Trucking

Plaintiff propounded the form interrogatories on Montoya Trucking on May 3, 2022.  Plaintiff provides that after granting extensions, Montoya Trucking’s responses were due on August 22, 2022.  Plaintiff asserts that to date, despite an attempt to meet and confer, Montoya Trucking has not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Montoya Trucking to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories.

Montoya Trucking, in opposition, contends that it served timely objection only responses to the form interrogatories on August 22, 2022.  Montoya Trucking argues that Plaintiff received the responses before the motion was filed, and that it has not waived objections to the form interrogatories. 

Montoya Trucking’s responses contained solely objections.  Consequently, the responses were not required to be verified.  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, 40 Cal.App.4th at 657.)  Furthermore, although Plaintiff asserts that no responses were served by Montoya Trucking, Montoya Trucking’s evidence shows that it served the responses on August 22, 2022, which was the deadline based on the extension Plaintiff granted.  (Opp. Exh. A.)  Plaintiff did not file a reply or otherwise dispute proper service of the Montoya Trucking’s responses to the form interrogatories. 

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories against Montoya Trucking made under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b), which is not applicable in this situation, is denied.  No sanctions are requested by Montoya Trucking, and none are appropriate. 

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 21^st day of February 2023