Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV00997, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV00997 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), Esayas Alemu (“Alemu”), and Does 1-100 for negligence.
On February 21, 2023, the County and Alemu filed answers.
On July 3, 2024, the County filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. (The County should have filed three separate motions, one for each type of discovery.) The County also requested sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on August 7, 2024. On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition and request for sanctions. On July 31, 2024, the County filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to September 9, 2024.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties participated in an IDC on July 2, 2024.
B. Timeliness of motion
1. 45-days after service of verified responses
A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories].) Failure to file a motion by this deadline constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses.
Plaintiff's responses were not properly verified because Plaintiff purported to verify them on "information and belief." (See below.) Therefore, the 45-day deadline did not apply. Even if the 45-day deadline applied, the County filed its motion within 45 days of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.
2. Discovery motion cut-off deadline
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)
On June 14, 2024, Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the trial and related dates. The Court granted the application in part and continued the trial from July 16, 2024 to August 15, 2024. The Court ruled that discovery and related dates would remain associated with the July 16, 2024 trial date absent a stipulation or a noticed motion to reopen discovery.
On July 24,2024, Defendants filed another ex parte application, asking the Court to continue the trial to February 14, 2025 and reopen discovery and related dates. Defendants observed that their motion to compel further discovery was set for August 7, 2024, after the cut-off date.
The Court granted the ex parte application in part and continued the trial to October 2, 2024. The Court denied without prejudice the request to reopen discovery and related dates with the exception of Defendants' motion to compel further discovery, which the Court agreed to consider on August 7, 2024 or as soon thereafter as the Court's calendar allowed. Due to the Court’s impacted calendar, the Court continued the hearing to September 9, 2024.
Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the County’s motion to compel further responses does not violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a).
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd (b)(2) [demand for inspection]; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1) [interrogatories].) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
The parties have met and conferred.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
The County has filed a separate statement.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. Verification
Discovery responses must be signed under oath by the party to whom they are directed. (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:11102, p. 8F-50 [interrogatories], ¶8:1477, p. 8H-33 [inspection demands] (Cal. Practice Guide).)
However, “[a] verification on behalf of an individual stating ‘I am informed and believe that the matters stated herein are true’ is insufficient.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:1104, p. 8F-51.)
B. Demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
C. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
“(b) (1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.
“(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 further 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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
DISCUSSION
A. The County’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one
Served: January 19, 2024
Responses: March 12, 2024
Further responses: April 29, 2024, June 26, 2024
Motion filed: July 3, 2024
B. The County’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one
Served: January 19, 2024
Responses: March 12, 2024
Further responses: April 29, 2024, June 26, 2024
Motion filed: July 3, 2024
Granted: All
D. The County’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set one
Responses: March 12, 2024
Further response April 29, 2024, May 28, 2024
Motion filed: July 3, 2024
The Court awards the County $690.00 in sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to compel Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad to provide further verified, code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one, numbers 9.2 and 10.1, by September 30, 2024. The Court also orders Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad to provide a code-compliant verification.
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant County of Los Angeles’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad and her counsel to pay Defendant County of Los Angeles $690.00 in sanction by September 30, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES Defendant County of Los Angeles’s request for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Julie Jaleh Sabaierad’s request for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant County of Los Angeles to pay the Court two additional filing fees of $60.00, for a total of $120.00, by September 30, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.