Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV16627, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV16627    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One

Moving Party: Plaintiff Paul Brown

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One

Moving Party: Plaintiff Paul Brown

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One

Moving Party: Plaintiff Paul Brown

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions Set One

Moving Party: Plaintiff Paul Brown

Resp. Party:    None

The FROGs Motion, SROGs Motion, and RPDs Motion are GRANTED.

        Plaintiff shall provide properly-verified initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.

        The RFAs Motion is GRANTED.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $2,331.60.

BACKGROUND:

        On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff Paul Brown filed a Complaint against Defendant Sunpower Capital, LLC on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s lease of a solar panel system from Defendant.

        On September 14, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

        On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One (“FROGs Motion”); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One (“SROGs Motion”); (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One (“RPDs” Motion”); and (4) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions Set One (“RFAs Motion”). With each of the discovery motions, Plaintiff concurrently filed a Proposed Order.

        Defendant did not file an opposition or other response to the discovery motions.

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed one Reply for all of the discovery motions.

ANALYSIS:

        For clarity and ease of analysis, the Court concurrently considers the motions.

I.          Legal Standard

A.          Legal Standard for Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

B.      Legal Standard for Requests for Admission

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The requesting party may then “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

A court will deem requests admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to serve responses to form interrogatories (“FROGs”), special interrogatories (“SROGs”), and a request for production of documents (“RPDs”). (FROGs Motion, p. 5:18–20; SROGs Motion, p. 5:18–19; RPDs Motion, p. 6:2–3.)

        Plaintiff also moves the Court to deem admitted the genuineness of documents and truth of the matters specified in the request for admissions (“RFAs”). (RFAs Motion, pp. 2:1–3, 5:17–18.)

        According to Plaintiff’s Reply, responses have been served, but these responses lack proper verifications. (Reply, p. 2:2–3.) Specifically, the verifications, which are from outside of the State of California, do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5, subdivision (b).

“Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit . . . in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

        . . .

“(b) If executed at any place, within or without this state:

“‘I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct’:

_____________ _________
(Date)(Signature)”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5, subd. (b).)

        The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the verifications provided do not substantially comply with this statute because they are not sworn under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. (Reply, Exh. 2.)

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

        There is no evidence before the Court that would indicate Defendant responded to these discovery requests.

        The Court GRANTS the FROGs Motion, SROGs Motion, and RPDs Motion.

        Plaintiff shall provide properly verified initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.

        The Court GRANTS the RFAs Motion.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

B.      Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant for each of the motions. (FROGs Motion, p. 5:18–20; SROGs Motion, p. 5:18–19; RPDs Motion, p. 6:2–3.)

The evidence before the Court indicates that Defendant’s response were untimely and/or unverified.

The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendant.

Plaintiff’s Counsel declares: (1) that they charge $625.00 per hour and their paralegal charges $175.00 per hour; (2) that they incurred a collective 1.2 hours of paralegal work and 8.7 hours of attorney work for these four discovery motions; and (3) that they paid $61.65 in costs for each of these motions.

The Court finds that the hourly rates, paralegal hours, and costs incurred are reasonable. However, the attorney hours incurred for the motions are duplicative, and the motions are unlikely to have taken as long as claimed. The Court will allow monetary sanctions for a total of 1.2 hours of paralegal work and 3 hours of attorney work, plus the costs for the motions.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $2,331.60.

III.     Conclusion

The FROGs Motion, SROGs Motion, and RPDs Motion are GRANTED.

        Plaintiff shall provide properly-verified initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.

        The RFAs Motion is GRANTED.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $2,331.60.