Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV10900, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10900    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff Randall Stewart initiated this action against Defendants Los Angeles Police Department, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Bryan Dameworth. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed January 18, 2023, alleges (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) battery by peace officer, (4) negligent hiring, (5) negligence, (6) negligent use of deadly force, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) violation of the Bane Act. Plaintiff alleges that he was attending a protest on May 30, 2020, in Los Angeles when Officer Dameworth fired a rubber bullet, striking him. (SAC ¶¶ 10-12.) The incident allegedly left Plaintiff with severe injuries and continued pain and suffering (Id., ¶ 30.)

            On December 12 and 14, 2023, Defendant Dameworth filed the instant three motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff with respect to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, and Requests for Production. Plaintiff filed his oppositions on December 29, 2023. Defendant filed his replies on January 5, 2024.   

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Jeffery Decl.)  

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Admission

            “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240(a).) Plaintiff served his original responses, consisting of only objections, on October 17, 2023. (Jeffery Decl. ¶ 4; Park Decl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff then served supplemental responses, consisting of objections and responses, on October 23, 2023. (Jeffery Decl. ¶ 5; Park Decl., Ex. 2.) Because the October 23 responses consisted of more than just objections, Plaintiff was required to verify those responses.

Upon serving the October 23 responses, Plaintiff promised that “verifications will follow shortly.” (Jeffery Decl., Ex. A.) Defense counsel attempted to follow up on October 31, November 17, and December 4, but did not receive any response. (Id., ¶¶ 5-7.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff had not provided the promised verification. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff executed a verification on December 18, 2023, after this motion was filed. (Park Decl., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff has provided no substantial justification for the delay in verifying the October 23 responses.

II. Form Interrogatories

            First, Plaintiff must verify the responses, as discussed above. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250(a).) Second, an answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) Form Interrogatories are drafted and approved by the Judicial Council and seek basic information fundamental to routine discovery. (See Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) A party “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right . . . [and] the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

Plaintiff asserted boilerplate objections to FROG No. 17.1 as it relates to RFA Nos. 14 and 19, both of which Plaintiff objected to and then denied. Plaintiff argues that because RFA Nos. 14 and 19 were too vague to be answered, he properly refused to answer the associated FROG No. 17.1 based on the same objections. RFA No. 14 asked Plaintiff to admit that prior to being struck, nothing prevented him from leaving the area. Plaintiff argues that RFA No. 14 is unclear about what it means for Plaintiff to have been “prevented from” leaving the area. RFA No. 19 asked Plaintiff to admit that a dispersal order was given over the public address system near the area of the incident. Plaintiff argues that RFA No. 19 is unclear about what a “public address system” or “dispersal order” are, or what is considered “near” the subject area.

Plaintiff’s argument that these RFAs are unanswerable is without merit because Plaintiff actually answered them by denying both. By denying RFA No. 14, Plaintiff is contending that something prevented him from leaving the area of the incident. By denying RFA No. 19, Plaintiff is contending that a dispersal order was not given near the area of the incident. Plaintiff must naturally provide the facts supporting these contentions, which is precisely the purpose of FROG No. 17.1. The terms at issue are sufficiently clear to warrant a response.

III. Requests for Production

            Plaintiff responded to the RFPs by asserting boilerplate objections and then ending with the statement, “Plaintiff will provide supplemental responses promptly.” (Jeffery Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Plaintiff promised to provide responses first by October 20, then October 27, but failed to do so by either date. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff did not respond to subsequent follow-up communications. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) The boilerplate objections are without merit, and Plaintiff did not provide the promised supplemental responses until after this motion was filed. (Park Decl., Ex. 3.)   

IV. Sanctions

            Plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly respond to discovery is not supported by substantial justification. The fact that Plaintiff only provided verifications and supplemental responses after these motions were filed shows that the motions were necessary, and Defendant is entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s actions. Sanctions are warranted in the amount of $1,625, representing 5 hours at $325 per hour.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses to the subject discovery within 10 days. The Court sanctions Plaintiff and his counsel in the total amount of $1,625, to be paid within 30 days.