Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 21TRCV00225 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, February 23, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 2

1. Sanford Jossen, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (Last Four Numbers of Res. # 6097)

2. Sanford Jossen, et al.’s s Motion to Deem Admissions Propounded to Defendant Ramey Law, P.C. Admitted or Alternatively, to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, and Request for Sanctions (Last Four Numbers of Res. # 1122)

Sanford Jossen, et al.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is denied, in part, and granted, in part.

Sanford Jossen, et al.’s s Motion to Deem Admissions Propounded to Defendant Ramey Law, P.C. Admitted or Alternatively, to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, and Request for Sanctions is denied, in part, and granted, in part.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on March 24, 2021. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 9, 2022. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs referred a legal action to Defendants. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs 40 percent of all attorneys’ fees. Defendants settled the case for $380,000.00 and received $128,666.67 in attorneys’ fees. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the referral fee. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Written Contract; 2. Common Counts.

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

A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP §§ 2031.310(b)(2) and 2016.040. (Decl., Sanford Josssen.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Ramey Law, P.C. to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1-4, and 6-12.

The Court notes that the only evidence provided in support of Defendant’s opposition was the declaration of John F. Ramey filed on February 7, 2023. The declaration is silent as to any of the substantive issues related to this motion and instead merely requests that the Court accept the filing of the opposition that was purportedly one day late. The Court notes, in fact, that the opposition was filed two days late. In any event, the Court continued the motion on its own motion and will consider the opposition. However, the declaration did not make any attempt to explain or oppose any of the arguments made in the motion itself. The declaration is silent as to the issues involved in the substantive portion of this motion.

First, Plaintiff contends that Defendant served unverified responses to the Request for Production of Documents. Again, as noted above, the declaration of John F. Ramey does not address this contention in any manner. Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all, and, if no verification was served, the motion would be considered a motion to compel initial responses. If, in fact, no verification has been served as of this date, Defendant is ordered to serve a verification upon Plaintiff within two days of this date. Verifications are not required only when the responses consist of mere objections. Here, however, while the responses are replete with numerous objections, substantive responses stating that Defendant would comply in some manner were also set forth.

Second, within the body of the opposition, Defendant refers to serving some type of production on July 28, 2022. Again, this argument is not supported by any evidence in the opposition as to the type of response or production that this consisted of. The Court cannot deem the motion moot merely from this stray reference that is not supported by any evidence.

As to Requests 1, 2, 6, and 9, the motion is granted, in part. Defendant has adequately demonstrated that the requests may lead to the discovery of documents that are subject to valid privileges. However, Defendant failed to produce a privilege log. Defendant is ordered to serve a privilege log with respect to these requests within 10 days of this date.

As to Requests 3 and 12, the motion is denied. The responses are adequate and contain a statement of compliance, in connection with objections, as authorized under CCP § 2031.240.

As to Request 4, the motion is denied. The request is nonsensical and ambiguous as it cannot be determined the type of correspondences that are requested. The request seeks a correspondence “between” Kathleen Kitts-Struyk, but the manner in which the request is phrased makes it uncertain as to the other party in the alleged correspondence.

As to Requests 7, 8, 10, and 11, the motion is denied. The requests are completely overly broad and seek matters that are not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.

Thus, the motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, with the orders mentioned above.

CCP § 2033.280(b) states: “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).” (CCP § 2033.280(b))

On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff Sanford Jossen served Requests for Admissions, Set One, upon Defendant Ramey Law P.C. On April 1, 2022, Defendant served unverified responses. (Decl., Sanford Jossen, ¶¶ 3-5.) Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. See, Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.

Defendant filed a written opposition which shows that the verification was served on September 22, 2022. (Defendant’s Exhibit D).

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is denied because the responses are in sufficient compliance with Section 2033.220. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied, in part, and granted, in part. It is true that, as to a Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, it is mandatory to impose monetary sanctions on a party and/or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the filing of the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c).

However, the motion was filed by Plaintiff, in pro per, and, thus, Plaintiff would not be entitled to sanctions. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s current counsel was substituted in on November 14, 2022. Arguably, Plaintiff’s counsel could be entitled to the fees incurred for preparing and filing a Reply and for attending the hearing. However, to obtain sanctions, Plaintiff must provide a declaration to support the amount of sanctions. CCP § 2023.040. Here, no Reply was filed. As noted above, the time incurred by Plaintiff, as a pro per, is not recoverable as a monetary sanction. However, the Court awards filing fees in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $60.00. The amount of $60 for filing fees are to be paid within 30 days of this date.