Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV29648, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

CASE: Donyea Richardson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

On March 13, 2023, Defendant, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, filed these motions to compel Plaintiff, Donyea Richardson, to provide responses to Defendant’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production and Inspection of Documents. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed a consolidated opposition. In the opposition, Plaintiff requests a continuance for the motions until after Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. The motion to be relieved is set for October 30, 2023.

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).) Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

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).)

Defendant served Plaintiff with the at-issue discovery requests on November 23, 2022. Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension to provide responses. However, to date, Plaintiff has not provided responses. (See Sheppard Decls.) In his consolidated opposition, Plaintiff admits not having provided responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demands for inspection are waived.

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Inspection.¿

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues the request for sanctions should be denied because Plaintiff did not willfully fail to respond to discovery.[1] [2] The Court is not persuaded. Defendant served the at-issue discovery requests nearly a year ago. There is no indication Plaintiff served, or attempted to serve, discovery responses in that time. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $750 representing 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate.

Plaintiff Donyea Richardson is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production and Inspection of Documents.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $750, to be paid to Defendant, by and through its counsel.

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

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.

[1] The Court also notes this representation is not stated in a declaration from Plaintiff under penalty of perjury.

[2] Curiously, Plaintiff also waives whatever sanctions to which he might be entitled. Given there is no dispute that Defendant properly served the at-issue discovery requests and Plaintiff has not provided responses, Plaintiff would not be entitled to any sanctions.