Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV26613, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26613    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    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

Plaintiff Adrien Aaron Garcia moves to compel responses from defendant Juan Carlos Olvera (“Olvera”) to Demand for Production, set two (“RPD”).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions.  Defendants Juan Carlos Olvera (“Olvera”) and American Way Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.     

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Plaintiff served the subject discovery request on Olvera on October 5, 2021, by mail.  Olvera’s responses was thus due by November 9, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not received responses from Olvera. Accordingly, the Court finds that Olvera has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Olvera’s failure to respond to the subject discovery request to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

In opposition, Defendants argue sanctions against Olvera and his counsel are unwarranted.  Counsel for Defendants, David H. Lieberthal (“Lieberthal”), states that his office has had intermittent contact with Olvera after Plaintiff initially served written discovery and never received Olvera’s signed verifications.  (Declaration of David H. Lieberthal, ¶ 4.)  But the Court notes that “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  Lieberthal states that his office has nevertheless prepared and provided unverified responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery, and notified counsel for Plaintiff of the minimal communication with Olvera.  (Declaration of David H. Lieberthal, ¶¶ 5-9.)  Defendants therefore conclude that the imposition of sanctions against counsel for Olvera would be unjust.  The Court agrees.

Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Olvera in the amount of $500, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RPD per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, and orders Olvera to serve verified responses to the RPD without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders Olvera to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.