Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV31891, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31891    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff Traci Denyse Thornton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Haroni Investments, LLC (“Haroni”), Cit Bank, N.A., Cit Group, Inc. and Does 1 to 50 (collectively “Defendants”) for general negligence and premises liability.  On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging that she sustained injuries on September 2, 2019 as a result of unsafe, unreasonable, hazardous, and/or defective conditions on Defendants’ property.

          On March 8, 2022, Haroni served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. One).  On May 16, 2022, after Haroni provided Plaintiff with a few extensions, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents.  On May 20, 2022, Haroni sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter, which asked Plaintiff to provide verifications to Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff served further unverified responses to Form Interrogatories and the Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents.  Haroni notified Plaintiff on June 15, 2022 that some of Plaintiff’s further unverified responses were still inadequate and that Plaintiff had yet to provided verifications as required.  Plaintiff did not respond or provide the requested verified responses or verifications.

On June 28, 2022, Haroni filed the instant motions to (1) compel Plaintiff’s further verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) and to provide verifications, and (2) to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. One) and to provide verifications.  No oppositions were filed.

II.          DISCUSSION

A.   Form Interrogatories

Haroni seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications for Plaintiff’s May 16, 2022 and June 13, 2022 responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. One).[1]  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.)  Responses to written discovery are deemed statutorily compliant even without verifications when the responses contain objections as well as substantive responses.  (Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345; Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)  If discovery responses consist entirely of objections, only the attorney’s signature is required.  (Code Civ. Proc.  §2030.250, subds. (a) and (c).)

As for Plaintiff’s June 13, 2022 responses to the Form Interrogatories, it appears that some of Plaintiff’s responses contain both objections and substantive responses, and others contain only substantive responses.  (McNulty Decl.-FROGs, ¶ 7, Ex. E.)  Specifically, Plaintiff has provided only substantive responses (i.e., without any objections) to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 10.3, 11.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, and 14.2.  As these substantive responses need to be verified, the lack of verification means that Plaintiff has not provided any responses to these Form Interrogatories.  (Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-36.)  Defendant is thus entitled to a court order compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications to her June 13, 2022 responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 10.3, 11.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, and 14.2.

Haroni also seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Form Interrogatories 10.1 and 14.1 because Plaintiff provides incomplete or evasive responses as well as meritless objections.  A motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Here, Form Interrogatory 10.1 requests the following:

At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state:

(a) a description of the complaint or injury;

(b) the dates it began and ended; and

(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you.

(Separate Statement, Form Interrogatories, p. 2.)  Plaintiff objected on the basis that the interrogatory required an expert opinion currently barred from discovery under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034, et seq., and called for legal conclusion.  Plaintiff further responded that “discovery and investigation are continuing.”  (Id.)  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are meritless and overly generalized.  A party may discover any non-privileged matter that is “relevant to the subject matter” of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)  Here, Haroni seeks Plaintiff’s firsthand knowledge of Plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the incident and whether Plaintiff’s injuries involved parts of Plaintiff’s body that had previously troubled Plaintiff.  Such information is relevant to the issue of causation and to Haroni’s evaluation of the case, preparation for trial, or facilitating settlement.  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)  Therefore, the Court finds that Haroni is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s further verified response to Form Interrogatory No. 10.1.

          The Court also finds that Haroni is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s further verified response to Form Interrogatory No. 14.1.  Interrogatory 14.1 requests the following:

Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated.

(Separate Statement, Form Interrogatories, p. 4.)  In response, Plaintiff states: “Including but not limited to Civil code 1714.”  (Id.)  Plaintiff provides further allegations of Defendants’ liability but fails to identify an additional statutes, regulations, or cods.  Such a response is incomplete.  An answer to discovery supplying only part of the information requested is insufficient.  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1979) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)  Further, the requested information is relevant to Haroni’s ability to evaluate the case or prepare for trial.  (Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1546.)

In sum, Haroni’s motion to compel further verified responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 10.1 and 14.1 is GRANTED. 

B.   Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

Haroni seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications for her May 16, 2022 and June 13, 2022 responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. One) (“Demand for Inspection”).  

A review of Plaintiff’s May 16, 2022 responses shows that Plaintiff objected to every inspection demand.  (McNulty Decl.-RFP, ¶ 5, Ex. C.)  Because Plaintiff responded with objections only and plaintiff’s attorney signed the responses, Plaintiff has provided code compliant responses.  If discovery responses consist entirely of objections, only the attorney’s signature is required.  (Code Civ. Proc.  §2030.250, subds. (a) and (c).)  Thus, Haroni is not entitled to an ordered compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications to her May 16, 2022 responses to the Demand for Inspection.

Nor is Haroni entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verifications to her June 13, 2022 responses to the Demand for Inspection.  A review of those responses reveal that Plaintiff responded with objections alone or contained objections and substantive responses.  (McNulty Decl.- RFP, ¶ 8, Ex. F.)  Responses to written discovery are deemed statutorily compliant even without verifications when the responses contain objections as well as substantive responses.  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.)  Accordingly, Haroni’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verifications for her responses to the Demand for Inspection is DENIED.

Haroni also seeks an order to compel Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Demands for Inspection Nos. 1-5 and 8-21 because Plaintiff provides meritless objections or has failed to produce the requested documents after so agreeing.  A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court finds that Haroni is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses to Demands for Inspection Nos. 1-5 and 8-21.  These Demands seek documents that relate to the incident in question, including all documents substantiating Plaintiff’s claim for economic damage, visual media depicting damage to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s property, or showing the scene of the incident, transcribed or written statements taken from an witness to the incident, documents establishing the sums actually paid by Plaintiff’s insurance plan, documents related to billings for treatment or consultation with any health care provider, medical records, documents reflecting treatments received, diagnostic tests, cell phone records, text messages, and social media posts.  These Demands are relevant to Plaintiff’s potential liability and claim for damages, and also seek background and investigative information that will permit Haroni to evaluate the case, prepare for trial, or facilitate settlement.  (Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1546.)  Accordingly, Haroni’s motion to compel further verified responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. One), Nos. 1-5 and 8-21 is GRANTED.

C.   Monetary Sanctions

Haroni has requested imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, Harry Nalbandyan, in the amount of $795.40 for preparing and filing each motion.  A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party where the party fails to serve verified responses to an interrogatory request or fails to comply with a demand for inspection and production of documents by not producing the requested documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.)

The Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is warranted.  Plaintiff has not provided verified responses to the discovery requests at issue and has failed to comply with the Demand for Inspection of Documents by not producing the requested documents.  Further, Plaintiff has failed to timely provide verified responses and comply with the request for documents despite Haroni having propounded the discovery requests on Plaintiff over ten months ago.  Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  Because Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the instant motions, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced total amount  of $695.0, which represents 4 hours of plaintiff’s counsel’s time in preparing the instant motions and attending the hearing at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $143.75 and $120.00 in filing fees.

III.        CONCLUSION

The motions are granted in part.  Plaintiff Traci Denyse Thornton is ordered to (1) provide verifications to her June 13, 2022 responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 10.3, 11.1, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, and 14.2; (2) serve verified further responses without objections to Defendant Haroni Investments, LLC, Form Interrogatories (Set No. One), Nos. 10.1 and 14.1; and (3) serve further verified responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. One), Nos. 1-5 and 8-21 and to produce documents for the same within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Defendant Haroni Investment, LLC’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. 

Plaintiff Traci Denyse Thornton and plaintiff’s counsel Harry Nalbandyan are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions to Defendant Haroni Investments, LLC in the amount of $695 within twenty (20) days 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 15th day of February 2023