Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 22TRCV00926 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

(1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One

(3) Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Identification and Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One

The motions are MOOT. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to plaintiff in the amount of $1,380 in total for the three motions, within 30 days.

On October 11, 2022, plaintiff Alexis Mikayla Rodriguez filed a complaint against Los Angeles County MTA for (1) negligence (Gov. Code §815.2), (2) violation of Vehicle Code §§22350 and 17001, and (3) negligence (Gov. Code §820(a)). Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2020, at approximately 8:00 p.m., plaintiff was a lawful passenger in a motor vehicle, which was lawfully proceeding on Hawthorne Blvd. at or near the subject intersection. Defendant’s bus was proceeding northbound on Hawthorne Blvd. at or near the subject intersection when it collided with the car plaintiff was riding.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. 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.

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. So, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

Plaintiff Alexis Mikayla Rodriguez requests that the court compel defendant LA County MTA to provide verified responses to plaintiff’s initial form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for identification and production of documents and things.

Plaintiff asserts that on November 9, 2022, plaintiff served her written discovery on defendant. On November 21, 2022, defense counsel requested an extension of 30 days, and plaintiff’s counsel gave an extension to January 13, 2023. On January 10, 2023, defense counsel requested an additional extension of 14 days to respond, which plaintiff’s counsel granted. On January 26, 2023, plaintiff contends, defendant served unverified and deficient responses. On February 7, 2023, plaintiff asserts, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel regarding the deficiencies and requested that defendant serve verifications and further responses by February 14, 2023. Plaintiff asserts that defense counsel did not respond and as of the date of the filing of the motions, February 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel had not received verifications or supplemental responses.

In opposition, defendant argues that it has responded in good faith, with valid objections, to each discovery request. Defendant also asserts that on February 28, 2023, defendants served verifications.

In reply, plaintiff reiterates her argument that defendant’s responses were incomplete because it had not served verifications.

The court finds that plaintiff properly served written discovery and that although defendant served responses, it failed to serve verifications. Unverified discovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636. But defendant did serve verifications after the motions were filed. Thus, the motions are MOOT as there is nothing to compel. As to whether defendant’s responses are deficient or defendant’s objections lack merit, the court does not address. Plaintiff brought these motions to compel under CCP §2030.290 and §2031.300, and not §2030.300 and §2031.310 to compel further responses.

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The 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.”

Plaintiff requests $2,060 in attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions against defendant for each motion. The court finds that $1,380 ($400/hr. x 3 hrs., $180 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be awarded in favor of plaintiff, in total for three motions, against defendant.