Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV41858, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 20STCV41858    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Southwest Region (“DOC”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel DOC to submit responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set 1, Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1, and to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1 admitted (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

            Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.  (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  

Under CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  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.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion.  (Id.)  Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

            The discovery requests at issue were served on November 8, 2022.  (Declaration of Tamu Blackwell (“Blackwell Decl.”) ¶ 9.)  Unverified responses were provided on December 13, 2022.  (Blackwell Decl. ¶ 10.)  Further responses were received on December 22, 2022.  (Blackwell Decl. ¶ 15.) 

            Plaintiff appears to dispute the propriety of the verifications being signed by Defendant Bruce Indermill (“Indermill”).  Indermill is DOC’s corporate secretary.  (Declaration of Thomas M. Regan (“Regan Decl.”) ¶ 8.)  As a corporate officer, Indermill was authorized to provide verifications on DOC’s behalf.  (See CCP §§ 2030, subd. (b), 2031.250, subd. (b), 2033.240, subd. (b).)  DOC therefore submitted its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests before Plaintiff filed the Motion.  The Motion is thus MOOT.  The Court denies Plaintiff’s and DOC’s requests for monetary sanctions.       

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 13th day of April 2023