Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03100, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV03100    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 11/12/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. d/b/a Whole Foods Market

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Mildred Deas

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objection, and imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record in the amount of $2,810.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from personal injuries Plaintiff sustained at the Whole Foods Market when she was allegedly struck by a sliding door.  

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff Mildred Deas (“Plaintiff” or “Deas”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. d/b/a Whole Foods Market (erroneously sued as Whole Foods Market California, Inc.) (“Defendant” or “Whole Foods”) and Does 1 through 20, alleging three causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent entrustment, engagement, and supervision, and (3) premises liability. Subsequently, on November 16, 2023, Whole Foods filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On November 12, 2024, Whole Foods filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an Opposition on March 5, 2025, and Whole Foods submitted a Reply on March 11, 2025.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) (Underlines added.)

By contrast, the demanding party may “move for an order compelling further responses to the demands” if “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling,” and “the demanding party deems that … [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] … [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] … [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) (Underlines added.)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff has ultimately served verified substantive responses before the hearing. However, the following undisputed facts form the foundation of the Court’s analysis.

Whole Foods claims that on March 25, 2024, the first set of discovery requests, including the Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) was propounded on Plaintiff. (Whitten Decl. ¶ 8.) Later Whole Foods granted an extension for Plaintiff to respond to discovery by May 15, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9.) On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff served objection-only responses. (Id. ¶ 10.) Between June 10 and September 13, 2024, the parties met and conferred, resulting in Whole Foods granting multiple extensions and Plaintiff’s supplemental responses became due on September 23, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 12-25.) Ultimately, on September 23, 2024, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses. (Id. ¶ 26.) However, Plaintiff’s supplemental responses failed to include verification. (Ibid.)

(1)   Plaintiff’s Initial Responses on May 15, 2024

Under California law, a response to a request for production of documents does not require verification by the party if it consists solely of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a).) In such cases, only the attorney for the responding party is required to sign the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served her initial responses to Whole Foods’s first set of request for production of documents on May 15, 2024. (Whitten Decl. ¶ 10.) Those responses contained only objections and were properly signed by Plaintiff’s attorney of record. (Id. Ex. “B.”)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s initial responses were timely, as they complied with the extended deadline agreed upon by the parties. Additionally, the responses conformed to statutory requirements by including the attorney’s signature for objection-only responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(3), 2031.250.)

Based on this record, the proper procedural mechanism for Whole Foods to challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s objections was a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

            However, Whole Foods incorrectly filed the instant Motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, which applies only when a party has failed to serve any initial responses. That statute provides no basis for relief here, as Plaintiff’s May 15, 2024, responses constituted valid initial responses.

(2)   Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses on September 23, 2024

As a matter of law, discovery responses must be verified as long as they contain substantive responses. (See, e.g., Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136.) Absent verification, such responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 (Appleton); Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907 (Zorro).)

Although Appleton and Zorro addressed requests for admissions, which differ from the request for production of documents at issue here, the Court finds that the legal principle remains applicable.

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses on September 23, 2024, contained supplemental responses but failed to include a verification. Under established precedent, these responses are deemed non-responses; however, this finding does not negate the fact that Plaintiff previously served initial responses on May 15, 2024. Given this timeline, the legal authority Whole Foods relies on in making the Motion – seeking to compel initial responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 – is inapplicable.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), “[t]he Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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 ...”

Because the Court has denied the Motion, monetary sanctions are inapplicable in the circumstances.

Therefore, the Court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. d/b/a Whole Foods’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. d/b/a Whole Foods’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.