Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV43927, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43927    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

          On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff Ethel Crutcher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants M740 Kroger West/Food 4 Less, Food 4 Less of Southern California (“Food 4 Less”), and The Kroger Co., for injuries arising from a slip-and-fall on Defendants’ premises.

On December 20, 2022, Defendant Food 4 Less served Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Requests for Production, Set Two, on Plaintiff Ethel Crutcher.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff served unverified responses on January 10, 2023. Food 4 Less proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses. Food 4 Less also requests monetary sanctions.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant Food 4 Less served Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Requests for Production, Set Two, on Plaintiff on December 20, 2022. (Both Feffer Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the discovery. (Both Feffer Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Defense counsel requested that verified responses be provided. (Feffer Decl., ¶ 7.) To date, no verification has been received. (Feffer Decl., ¶ 8.)

It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

Thus, Defendant Food 4 Less’ motions to compel verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production, Set Two, are GRANTED.

Defendant Food 4 Less’ request for sanctions is GRANTED. As the two motions are largely duplicative of each other, and no opposition or reply has been filed, sanctions are awarded in a reduced amount of $735.00 total (3 hours at $205 per hour, plus $120 in filing fees.)

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant Food 4 Less’ motions to compel verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production, Set Two, are GRANTED.

Plaintiff, Ethel Crutcher, is ordered to serve verified responses within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

 Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $735.00 for 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $205.00 and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  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.

    Dated this 4^th day of May 2023