Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV01883, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

DECRON PROPERTIES CORP.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On January 24, 2024, plaintiff Angela Pasquini commenced this action against defendants Decron Properties Corp. (“Decron”), Villa Cezanne Apartments, Robin Sidenstecker, Gino Cesario, and David Nagel.

On October 8, 2024, Decron propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”), and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), on Plaintiff. Responses were due on November 12, 2024. On November 12, 2024, at 10:17 a.m., Plaintiff requested an extension to serve substantive responses, or alternatively, objections would be served if an extension was not granted by noontime that day. Decron did not respond by noontime. Accordingly, Plaintiff served objection-only responses to SROG Nos. 3-19 and RPD Nos. 1-12 and 14-42, and unverified substantive responses to SROG Nos. 1 and 2 and RPD No. 13. No responses were provided to RPD Nos. 43-53. Decron attempted to meet and confer but to no avail.

On December 30, 2024, Decron filed this Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One, and Requests for production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Sanctions. Decron requests sanctions against Plaintiff.

On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Decron and its counsel.

If a party to whom interrogatories or 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).)¿¿¿

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿¿

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).)¿

The parties contest whether Decron’s motion seeks initial or further responses. If a motion to compel further responses, there are additional procedural requirements. Here, however, the answer, is not straightforward. It is undisputed Decron properly propounded the at issue discovery and Plaintiff served timely responses to most of the at issue discovery. Those responses, and non-responses, fall into the following three categories: (1) objection-only responses (SROG Nos. 3-19; RPD Nos. 1-12 and 14-42), (2) unverified substantive responses (SROG Nos. 1 and 2; RPD No. 13), and (3) no responses (RPD Nos. 43-53). The court addresses each category in turn.

Decron argues Plaintiff should be compelled to provide responses to SROG Nos. 3-19 and RPD Nos. 1-12 and 14-42 because the objections lack merit. However, in making this argument, Decron unwittingly recognizes that an objection is a valid response. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.240; 2031.240.) If Decron takes issue with the objection, its recourse is to file a motion to compel further. “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems … (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).) The same standard applies to inspection demands. (See ode Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).)

Decron is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to respond without objection to SROG Nos. 1 and 2 and RPD No. 13. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Plaintiff has likewise waived objections to these discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿¿

Plaintiff does not dispute having failed to provide any response to RPD Nos. 43-53. Objections are therefore waived. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿¿

Given the court has granted in part and denied in part Decron’s motion, the court declines to award sanctions to any party.

The motion is Granted as to SROG Nos. 1 and 2, and RPD Nos. 13 and 43-53. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to these discovery requests within 20 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Decron did not submit Plaintiff’s unverified responses to SROG Nos. 1 and 2, and RPD No. 13. However, Plaintiff does not dispute that the responses are unverified.