Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01280, Date: 2024-03-26 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: 22CHCV01280 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/27/24
Case #22CHCV01280
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 10/11/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Pacoima Plaza Shopping Center, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Araceli Ayala
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request to compel Plaintiff to provide
further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, is
granted. Further responses are due
within 30 days. The request for
sanctions is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of Plaintiff Araceli Ayala’s claim
that on 12/17/20 she was assaulted and battered by an unidentified third party
while shopping at a shopping center owned by Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Pacoima Plaza Shopping Center, LLC (Pacoima Plaza). Plaintiff alleges that Pacoima Plaza is
liable for the alleged incident because it failed to provide adequate security
at the premises. Plaintiff’s complaint indicates
that she is seeking damages for hospital and medical expenses, wage loss and
loss of earning capacity.
On 4/14/23, Pacoima Plaza served Plaintiff with Requests
for Production of Documents, Set 1.
(Dubin Decl., Ex.A). On 8/25/23,
Plaintiff served responses to the document requests, without objections. (Id., Ex.B). However, Pacoima Plaza contends the responses
are deficient.
On 9/28/23, Pacoima Plaza’s counsel sent a meet and
confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the responses and requesting
further responses by 10/5/23. (Id.,
Ex.C). No further responses were served,
nor did Plaintiff request an extension of time to respond. On 10/9/23, Pacoima Plaza’s counsel again
contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the subject discovery responses. Plaintiff did not serve further responses or
otherwise respond. (Id., Ex.D).
Therefore, on 10/11/23, Pacoima Plaza filed and served
the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further
and verified responses, without objections, to Pacoima Plaza’s Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1.
Additionally, Pacoima Plaza requests an award of sanctions against
Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,815.00. On 3/21/24,
Plaintiff filed an “Opposition to Motion to Compel” with a hearing date
of 3/26/24 which is the hearing date for Pacoima Plaza’s motion to compel
further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1. However, the opposition also includes
purported further responses to the document requests. If the opposition was intended to address the
instant motion, it is untimely. See
CCP 1005(b).
ANALYSIS
Assuming Plaintiff’s late opposition is also intended to
address the instant motion, it contends that Plaintiff served further responses
to the subject discovery on 12/24/23.
Plaintiff contends that defense counsel stated that such responses were
not received; therefore, Plaintiff indicates that she has since emailed a copy
of the further responses to Pacoima Plaza with a copy of the 12/24/23 proof of
service attached.
The proof of service for the opposition to the motion is
defective in that it indicates that it is for Plaintiff’s responses to the Form
Interrogatories, not the opposition. (See
Opposition, pdf p.2). Even if the
opposition was served on 3/21/24, the proof of service indicates that it was
served by United States Postal Service mail, not email. If the opposition was served only by regular
USPS mail on 3/21/24, such service does not comply with CCP 1005(c). Additionally, Pacoima Plaza may not receive the
opposition before the 3/27/24 hearing date.
Even if Pacoima Plaza receives the opposition and
attached discovery responses, the responses are defective. The purported further responses to Requests
1-12, 15, 17-29, 22 and 25-30 fail to comply with CCP 2031.220 because they do
not provide a clear statement indicating whether Plaintiff is complying “in
whole or in part” with these requests.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s responses to Requests 13-14, 16, 20-21, 23 and
24 fail to comply with CCP 2031.230 because they do not state that a diligent
search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the
underlying requests; specify the reason(s) for Plaintiff’s inability to comply
with the underlying requests; or set forth the name and address of
persons/entities believed to be in possession, custody, or control of
responsive documents. Also, Plaintiff
has improperly included objections (vague and overbroad) in response to
Requests 1 and 2 and the response to Request 1 implies that privileged
documents may have been withheld without providing a privilege log. See CCP 2031.240(c).
In addition, Plaintiff’s “further responses” do not
comply with CCP 2031.210(b) in that they are merely labeled “Meet and Confer –
Responses to Further Requests.” (See
Opposition, Ex.1). As noted above, the
responses include responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents. (See Opposition,
Ex.1, p.1:16-p.2:26 (“Additional Responses to Form Interrogatories),
p.3:1-p.7:14 (“Responses to Requests for Production of Documents”)). Further, the verification attached to such
responses is defective because it is not clear if it applies only to
interrogatories or both the interrogatory responses and the document request
responses (which have been in separate documents). (See Opposition, Ex.1, p.8 ¶¶2-3).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to provide any
further responses before the filing of the motion and the failure to provide
proper further responses thereafter would warrant the imposition of sanctions. See CCP 2031.310(h). However, Pacoima Plaza has failed to clearly
identify against whom sanctions are sought.
CCP 2023.040 requires that a request for sanctions, “in the
notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the
sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Here, the notice of motion indicates that monetary
sanctions are sought “against Plaintiff and her counsel” without identifying
any specific attorney. (See
Motion, p.2:7-10). In the memorandum of
points and authorities, Pacoima Plaza seems to only request sanctions against
Plaintiff. (See Motion, p.8:12-p.9:8).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further, verified
responses, without objections to Pacoima Plaza’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set 1, within 30 days. The
request for sanctions is denied.