Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00982, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00982    Hearing Date: June 23, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On March 30, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Rene Gomez (“Defendant”) filed 3 motions to compel initial responses from Plaintiff Wilber Velasquez for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; and (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  Defendant also filed a motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted against Wilber Velasquez. 

In addition, on March 30, 2023, Defendant filed 3 motions to compel initial responses from Plaintiff Edy Velasquez from for: (1) FROG; (2) SROG; and (3) RPD.  Defendant also filed a motion for order deeming RFAs admitted against Edy Velasquez.

On May 16, 2023, Defendant filed amended notices for each of the motions.  Total, there are 8 motions on calendar.

On December 30, 2022, Defendant served on Plaintiffs the discovery requests, such that responses were due by February 1, 2023.  Upon Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request, the parties extended the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to the discovery to March 2, 2023.  On March 17, 2023, defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to seek responses and Plaintiffs’ counsel asked for another extension to March 24, 2023 and offered to provide objection free responses.  Defense counsel refused to provide another extension but offered not to file the motions to compel until March 27, 2023.  As of the filing of the motions, Defendant states that it has not received responses from Plaintiffs. 

On June 12, 2023, Wilber and Edy Velasquez filed oppositions to the motions.  Plaintiffs’ counsel states that Plaintiffs served responses to the discovery at issue on June 9, 2023, such that the motions should be deemed moot.  Plaintiffs argue that the amount of sanctions sought is excessive and should be limited to no more than $180 per motion. 

On June 15, 2023, Defendant filed reply briefs, arguing that the motions are not moot because the discovery responses were not accompanied with proper verifications.  The responses were verified by Plaintiffs’ counsel and not Plaintiffs themselves, which is not proper pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.250(a), 2031.250(a), and 2033.240(a).  Under California law, unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted so that Plaintiffs are each required to provide verified responses to the discovery at issue.  Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified responses to the RFAs.  Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff Edy Velasquez in the amounts of: (1) $1,020 on the FROG motion; (2) $780 on the SROG motion; (3) $780 on the RPD motion; and (4) $780 on the RFA motion.  Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff Wilber Velasquez in the amounts of: (1) $2,220 on the FROG motion; (2) $780 on the SROG motion; (3) $780 on the RPD motion; and (4) $1,260 on the RFA motion.  The requests for sanctions are granted, but in the reduced amount of $1,920, plus $480 in filing fees.  The motions are relatively simple motions to compel initial responses and are essentially identical in form across the different Plaintiffs and discovery requests.  Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,400 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.