Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV46514 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production (Set Three) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Rexford Joon LLC

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections, as well as any responsive documents, within 15 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice today and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence and premises liability arising out of a trip and fall incident which took place in May 2019. Plaintiff Martin Scott filed his Complaint against Defendants the City of Los Angeles, the City of Beverly Hills, the County of Los Angeles, and L.E. Construction & Development, Inc. (erroneously sued as Los Angeles Construction and Development, Inc.) on December 23, 2019.

On February 25, 2020, the City of Los Angeles filed a Cross-Complaint against City of Beverly Hills, the County of Los Angeles, and Le Construction and Development, Inc.

On March 12, 2021, the City of Los Angeles dismissed Cross-Defendants the County of Los Angeles and the City of Beverly Hills. Plaintiff also dismissed the County of Los Angeles.

On December 22, 2022, Defendant Dan Weingarten, trustee of the trust and manager/member of Rexford Joon, LLC (“Rexford”) filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its requests for production (“RPDs”).

Rexford propounded its third set of RPDs on Plaintiff on November 8, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the requests.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, 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.

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) However, objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (CCP § 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).)

Rexford’s counsel testifies that he served Rexford’s third set of RPDs on Plaintiff on November 8, 2022. (McKinnon Decl., ¶10.) On December 16, 2022, after receiving no response, Rexford sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer email. (Id., ¶13.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Rexford’s counsel’s communications or served responses to the RPDs. (Id., ¶14.) Because Plaintiff has not responded to the RPDs, Rexford’s motion is granted.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)). Here, sanctions are denied because this motion is unopposed.