Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00602, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00602    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/25/23

Case #22CHCV00602

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 5/1/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joanna Delira

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Enrique Campos

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Enrique Campos (Campos) to provide verified discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,815 against Campos and his counsel, Eric Ibisi.

RULING: The request to compel verified responses is granted.  Verified responses are due within 20 days.  The request for sanctions is denied. 

On 3/24/23, Plaintiff Joanna Delira (Plaintiff) electronically served Defendant Enrique Campos (Campos) with Special Interrogatories, Set 1, making responses due on or before 4/26/23.  (Indrees Decl. ¶¶2-3, Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a).  Plaintiff contends that Campos has not provided any responses to the interrogatories.    

Therefore, on 5/1/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Campos to provide verified discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,815 against Campos and his counsel, Eric Ibisi.

The opposition contends Campos did respond to the discovery on 4/25/23 and 4/26/23.  However, Campos does not provide a copy of the responses and verification for same purportedly served on Plaintiff.  Additionally, the reply states that responses from Campos to the Special Interrogatories were never received.

Based on the foregoing, Campos is ordered to serve verified responses to the subject Special Interrogatories, Set 1, within 20 days. 

The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.  CCP 2030.290(c).  Plaintiff’s counsel concedes receiving certain discovery responses on 4/25/23 and 4/26/23 and does not dispute receiving the emails explaining the difficulties defense counsel’s office was having sending the responses electronically.  (See Reply, p.2:13-p.3:8; Ibisi Decl.; Jackson Decl.).  While not required under the Code of Civil Procedure, it would seem that Plaintiff’s counsel should have extended a professional courtesy by reaching out to Campos’ counsel and informing him that responses to the subject discovery was not included with the other responses to confirm whether the failure was merely an oversight.  The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel filed in support of the motion gives no indication of any such effort.  (See Indrees Decl.). 

The Court notes that both Plaintiff and Campos have failed to electronically bookmark the declarations and exhibits attached to their respective papers as required.  (See 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS,” p.4:4-p.5:12); CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in  matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. 

The Court further notes that the declarations submitted in support of the opposition are not executed under penalty of perjury.  See CCP 2015.5.