Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV03061, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV03061    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Saiking David Jackson (Saiking) and Leilani Jackson (Leilani) (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against Pauline and Erwin Nieburg as Trustees of the Nieburg 2001 Trust (Nieburg Defendants), North Oak Real Estate Investment (North Oak), and All About Cleaning Inc. (ABC). Plaintiffs allege that, on February 21, 2022, Saiking was exiting a condo owned/operated by Nieburg Defendants. Plaintiffs allege the floor of the condo had been recently pressure washed, presumably by Defendant ABC, and was slippery such that Saiking was caused to fall and sustain injury.

Before the Court are four motions by ABC to compel the initial discovery responses from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ Form and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition. The Court notes that, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted. 

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

II.                 MERITS

Discussion

On May 15, 2024, ABC served its discovery via email upon Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Posey Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel served unverified responses to each of the discovery demands on behalf of both Plaintiffs. (Posey Decl. ¶ 4.) ABC’s counsel states that shortly after receiving these unverified responses, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed that he would be seeking to be relieved as counsel. (Posey Decl. ¶ 5.) Indeed, on October 4, 2024, the Court granted motions to be relieved as counsel for both Plaintiffs. (See Oct. 4, 2024 Minute Orders). ABC states that they have received no verifications prior to those motions being granted, nor after. (Posey Decl. ¶¶ 8, 16.)

On October 24, 2024, Defendants served a notice for the deposition of Saiking and Leilani. (Posey Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 2.) The deposition notices were served upon Plaintiffs, now representing themselves, via email to kingsaidavid@gmail.com. (Id.)  Having received no response to the deposition notices, Defendants’ counsel hired a private investigator to confirm whether Plaintiffs still resided at their mailing address of 4805 Sawtelle Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. (Posey Decl. ¶ 11.) After Plaintiffs failed to appear for their depositions, Defendants’ counsel directed the investigator to surveil the Sawtelle address, at which time the investigator confirmed that Plaintiffs do reside there. (Posey Decl. ¶ 15.)

On January 10, 2025, Defendants’ counsel sent correspondence to Plaintiffs via certified mail explaining that ABC would file a motion to compel and seek sanctions if verified responses to written discovery were not received. (Posey Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. 3.) ABC reiterates that it has received no discovery verifications and no correspondence from Plaintiffs. (Posey Decl. ¶¶ 16, 17.)

By failing to provide verifications for their July 15, 2024 discovery responses, Plaintiffs have essentially rendered no responses to ABC’s discovery demands (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) Accordingly, the Court finds ABC’s unopposed motions to compel initial response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, should be GRANTED.

Sanctions

The 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. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) Further, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

Here, ABC requests sanctions commensurate with the following amounts incurred in bringing these motions: 

·         $6,160 in connection with the motion to compel Saiking’s responses to Form Interrogatories

·         $985 in connection the motion to compel Saiking’s responses to Special Interrogatories

·         $1,035 in connection with the motion to compel Leilani’s responses to Special Interrogatories

·         $635 in connection with the motion to compel Leilani’s responses to Form Interrogatories

(See Posey Decl. ¶¶ 19-21.)

The requested amounts include a cumulative 7.3 hours in preparing and filing the motions, an estimated 6 hours reviewing oppositions/filing replies, and $5,000 in fees associated with the hiring of a private investigator. ABC’s counsel states his hourly rate for such work to be $250. (Posey Decl. ¶ 19.)

Having reviewed the motions and the declarations of ABC’s counsel, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,032.50 as against each Plaintiff. This amount reflects the initial 7.3 hours in bringing the motions, as well as the $60 filing fee associated with each of the motions. This amount does not include the estimated 6 hours in reviewing opposition and replying, as no oppositions or replies were filed.

The $5,000 associated with the hiring of the private investigator is also not included. The Court finds such expenses are not properly compensable via these discovery motions. The declaration of ABC’s counsel shows the private investigator was hired to confirm Plaintiffs’ address. While this information no doubt assisted ABC in providing notice of this motion, it does not follow that necessary to them bringing this motion. The Court does not opine whether ABC’s expenses in hiring this investigator are compensable via other motion, only that recovery is not proper in this context. Other costs associated with the case may be considered at the conclusion of the matter as applicable under Code of Civil Procedure and a Motion for Costs.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

All About Cleaning Inc.  Motions to Compel Responses came on regularly for hearing on May 30, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SAIKING DAVID JACKSON’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SAIKING DAVID JACKSON’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LEILANI JACKSON’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LEILANI JACKSON’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

RESPONSES ARE TO BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SAIKING DAVID JACKSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,032.50.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF LEILANI JACKSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,032.50.

SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 AT 9:00 A.M.

ALL ABOUT CLEANING, INC. TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.