Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV00306 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Los Angeles County

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Los Angeles County

-Motion to Deem Request for Admission (Set One) Admitted by Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Los Angeles County

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December 2020. Plaintiff Danny Roberto Villatoro filed his Complaint against Defendants the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the State of California, Janisha Lashawn Pitts, and Rudolfo Marquez Reyes, Jr. on January 4, 2022.

On November 14, 2022, Defendant the County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed the instant motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production (“RPDs”), and to deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted.

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs 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. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 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.

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.

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “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).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

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)).)

County’s counsel testifies that he propounded requests for written discovery on March 7, 2022. (Gamez Decl., ¶2.) On June 16, 2022, after receiving no responses, counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff requesting that he provide responses within 10 days. (Id., ¶4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he propounded responses on August 2, 2022, though late. (Hakkak Decl., ¶6.) After receiving no response, Plaintiff’s counsel resent the responses on November 10, 2022. (Id., ¶7.) County then filed the instant motions on November 14, 2022. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested that County take these motions off calendar after County filed the motions and again on March 9, 2023. (Id., ¶¶9-10.) To date, County has not responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s communications. (Id.)