Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV00727, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
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.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 20STCV00727 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 Dept: 30
ANDRE LEROUX vs SUNNY HILLS PALLADIUM SUNNY HILLS PALLADIUM
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Discussion
Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two, on Defendant on February 22, 2023. (Mesaros Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff granted an extension to respond until May 30, 2023. On May 29, 2023, Defendant served its responses to several sets of discovery, but on review, Plaintiff discovered that the document labeled “Responses to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories, Set Two" was merely a duplicate of Defendant's responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Id., Ex.C.) The discovery responses were nothing but boilerplate objections. (Id., Exh. D.)
In opposition, Defendant argues it served responses on May 30, 2023, and it has now supplemented those responses.
Defendant served objection only responses within the time agreed upon by the parties. Thus, the objections are preserved and Defendant did not waive objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) Further, responses that only contain objections need not be verified by the party and the attorney’s signature is sufficient. (Id.) As timely responses were provided, the motion to compel a response is moot. If Plaintiff believed the objections were without merit, Plaintiff would have had to file a motion to compel further within the time allowed.
Monday, February 5, 2024
Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) requires sanctions when the motion is unsuccessfully opposed. Here, as the motion was not unsuccessfully opposed, and thus, the request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP section 2023.010 for the misuse of discovery is also denied, as "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)