Judge Lisa R. Jaskol, Case Number: 21STCV12025, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Carmen Velasquez-Contreras (“Contreras”) and Fausto Armijo filed this action against Defendants Jose M. Meija (“Jose Meija”), Mayra E. Meija (“Mayra Meija”), 5th Street Palm, LLC (“Palm”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Does 1-100 for premises liability, negligence, governmental tort liability, and loss of consortium.

On October 17, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to file a first amended complaint based on a stipulation between Plaintiffs, Palm, and the City.

On May 2, 2023, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Palm, Jose Meija, Mayra Meija, and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.

On February 20, 2024, Palm filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

The City asks the Court to compel Contreras to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to the City’s demand for inspection and production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. The City also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Contreras and her counsel.

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.

“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. . . .”

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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. . . .”

On July 18, 2023, the City served demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Contreras. On September 19, 2023, Contreras served unverified responses to the inspection demand and interrogatories. Arguing that the unverified responses are the equivalent of no responses, the City asks the Court to order Contreras to serve verified responses.

In opposition, counsel for Contreras asks the Court to deny the motions because, “[o]n information and belief,” Contreras recently passed away. Counsel does not state when Contreras died or when he learned of Contreras's death.

In its reply, the City asks the Court to impose sanctions on Contreras’s counsel for failing to advise the City of Contreras’s death before the City filed its motions to compel.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motions to compel Plaintiff Carmen Velasquez-Contreras’ verified responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, to November 13, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Contreras’ counsel is ordered to file and serve a declaration by November 7, 2024 which (1) provides the date of Contreras’s death, (2) provides a death certificate if one exists, (3) provides the date Contreras’s counsel learned of Contreras’s death, and (4) states whether counsel plans to dismiss Contreras from the case or seek appointment of a successor-in-interest to pursue Contreras’s claims.

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.