Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 20STCV44184, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV44184, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44184 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: September 12, 2023 TRIAL DATE: None set

CASE: Glenda Hudson v. Los Angeles World Airports

CASE NO.: 20STCV44184

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles World Airports

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2023, Defendant, Los Angeles World Airports, filed these motions to compel Plaintiff, Glenda Hudson, to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Set Two, and to deem the Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff.

The motions are unopposed.

As a threshold matter, Defendant’s motions are procedurally improper. Defendant has improperly filed three motions to compel regarding five distinct sets of written discovery. Defendant is directed to pay two additional filing fees and to file proof of payment with the Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on March 1, 2023. Responses were due April 5, 2023. (See Koenitzer Decl.) Therefore, all objections to the Form Interrogatories are waived.

Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on March 9, 2023. Responses were due on April 13, 2023. On June 12, 2023, after the deadline had passed and objections had been waived, Plaintiff provided responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff did not request an extension. The responses contained a mix of objections and unverified substantive responses. After Defendant advised Plaintiff of the deficient responses, on June 26, 2022, Plaintiff provided responses to the Special Interrogatories which again contained a mix of objections and unverified substantive responses. (See Koenitzer Decl.)

Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two, on March 9, 2023 and June 1, 2023, respectively. On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the production requests. To date, Plaintiff has yet to serve verified responses. (See Koenitzer Decl.)

Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions, Set One, on March 9, 2023. Responses were due April 13, 2023. However, on June 12, 2023, and June 26, 2023, after the deadline to serve responses had passed, Plaintiff served responses which contained a mix of objections and unverified substantive responses. To date, Plaintiff has yet to serve verified, objection-free responses.

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Furthermore, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).) As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to objection-free, verified responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two.¿ In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Request for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. Given the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted. Indeed, in the context of Requests for Admission, sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $720 representing 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motions are granted.

Plaintiff Glenda Hudson is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two. Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $720, to be paid to Defendant, by and through their counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to pay two additional filing fees and to file proof of payment within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: September 12, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.