Case Number: 21TRCV00034    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                        Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                               Calendar No. 3

PROCEEDINGS

Blake Williams v. City of Torrance, et al.   

21TRCV00034

1.      City of Torrance’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One

2.      City of Torrance’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One  

3.      City of Torrance’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

4.      City of Torrance’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

5.      Torrance Police Department’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

6.      Torrance Police Department’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

7.      City of Torrance’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

TENTATIVE RULING

            City of Torrance’s and Torrance Police Departments’ Motions are deemed moot, in part, denied, in part, and granted, in part.

            The non-RFA discovery motions are deemed moot. Plaintiff served responses after the motions were filed. The motion to deem requests for admissions is denied as Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs after the motion was filed. (Plaintiff’s Suppl. Opp., Ex. F). The responses are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. Moving parties’ requests for sanctions will be addressed below.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 15, 2020. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with the City of Torrance. Plaintiff was investigated for an arrest he made. Thereafter, he was improperly investigated in contravention of his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov. Code Sections 3303, et seq.; 2. Declaratory Relief; 3. Labor Code 1102.5.

Motions to Compel/Deem Admitted

CCP § 2030.290 states: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply…The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).) 

CCP § 2031.300 states: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”  (CCP § 2031.300(b)).

Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 states:

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. 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.”

Apparently, the parties do not dispute the fact that the substantive portions of the non-RFA motions are moot as Plaintiff has now served responses to the discovery items at issue. As to the RFA motion, Plaintiff served responses that are in substantial compliance with CCP 2033.220. Thus, that motion is denied.

Sanctions

Defendant City of Torrance’s request for monetary sanctions is granted, in part.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ requests for sanctions should be denied because Plaintiff was in military service and due to the entering of the military stay.  At the time the parties entered into the stipulation, Plaintiff was already in military service.  The Court recognizes that the stipulation to provide responses within 30 days after the disclosure of peace officer records was made, Plaintiff was, in fact, in military service at the time.  While it may be that Plaintiff should not have agreed to the terms of the stipulation if Plaintiff was not able to provide timely responses to discovery, the parties understood Plaintiff was, in fact, fulfilling his military service obligations at the time.  Again, the parties do not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff has now served substantive responses to the discovery items at issue.  

As to the RFA motion, sanctions are mandatory.  Thus, sanctions are awarded in favor of Defendant City of Torrance and against Plaintiff and his counsel, Corey Glave, in the total amount of $50. 

Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date.    

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.