Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV18832, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18832    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Tina Tinker to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPD”); and (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Plaintiff opposes the motions.

ANALYSIS

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636) [internal citation omitted]. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…[t]he 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 the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 20390.290, subd. (a).). Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it…[t]he 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[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on September 8, 2022. On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified responses.  Although Defendant sought service of the verifications, Plaintiff failed to serve such verifications as of the filing of the motions on January 5, 2023.  Subsequently, Plaintiff served the verifications on February 14, 2023. Accordingly, the Court finds the motions to compel to be moot, in part.

Although the Court finds Defendant’s motions to be moot, the question of sanctions nevertheless remains before the Court. “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  In opposition, Plaintiff argues that monetary sanctions are inappropriate because the delay in serving the verifications was due to counsel for Plaintiff being unable to reach Plaintiff so Plaintiff could sign the verifications.  According to counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant was made aware of the situation which was rectified when counsel for Plaintiff made contact with Plaintiff and served the signed verifications on February 14, 2023.   (See Declarations of Natali Shabani, ¶¶ 3-8.) 

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or counsel for Plaintiff would be unjust.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (d), 2030.300, subd. (c).)  Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motions to compel.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.