Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV11137, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11137    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Enrique Mena (“Plaintiff”) to provide responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and moves for evidentiary sanctions.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses within 30 days.

Defendant's motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses within 30 days.

The Court denies the request for evidentiary sanctions.

Background

            Plaintiff was an inmate in the Men’s Central Jail, under the custody and control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Complaint, ¶ GN-2.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owns and operates the Men’s Central Jail. (ibid.) Plaintiff further alleges on the morning of May 1, 2023, as Plaintiff was seated on his bunk bed inside of his locked cell, the cell door opened abruptly and smashed into Plaintiff’s foot, causing serious injuries. (Complaint, ¶¶ Prem.L-1, GN-1.) Plaintiff further alleges that a Sherriff’s Deputy, responsible for door operations, failed to provide any notice or warning before opening the cell doors, in violation of policy. (Complaint, ¶ Prem.L-1.)

            On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001, alleging causes of action for (1) premises liability and (2) general negligence against Defendant and DOES 1 to 20. As to the first cause of action for premises liability, Plaintiff alleges counts of (i) negligence, (ii) willful failure to warn, and (iii) dangerous condition of public property.

            On November 13, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff on July 3, 2024.

On December 19, 2024, counsel for Defendant filed a notice Defendant’s non-opposition. (Declaration of Raymond J. Fuentes (“Decl. of Fuentes, ¶ 8.”) As of December 24, 2024, the Court notes Plaintiff has not filed any opposition prior to the motion hearing set for December 31, 2024.

Discussion

             Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery requests because Plaintiff failed to provide any responses. Defendant served Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on July 3, 2024. (Declaration of Raymond J. Fuentes (“Decl. of Fuentes”), ¶ 2; Exhibits A, B.) Plaintiff’s discovery responses were initially due on August 4, 2024, but Defendant granted Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to August 26, 2024 and October 4, 2024. (ibid., at ¶ 4, Exhibits, C-E.) Plaintiff’s counsel informed counsel for Defendant that they have lost contact with Plaintiff. (ibid., at Exhibit E.) On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff delivered unverified responses to the Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. (ibid., at ¶ 5.) On October 4, 2024, Defendant informed counsel for Plaintiff that the unverified responses were insufficient, and requested a letter response, or the submission of verified responses by November 1, 2024. (ibid, at Exhibit E.) No response was received. (ibid., at ¶ 4.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to timely comply this its discovery obligation because they have failed to provide timely responses to discovery. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of this ruling.

The Court denies the request for evidentiary sanctions. Defendant does not specify what sort of evidentiary sanctions would be appropriate.  Moreover, the Court does not believe such sanctions to be appropriate under the current circumstances.