Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 24STCV01260, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV01260, Date: 2024-11-14 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: 24STCV01260 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: 34

A.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (24STCV01260)

1. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Set One (“ROG”), is GRANTED.

2. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One (“RPD”), is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Defendant’s ROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this court’s order.

Further, Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,397.50.

Background

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff A.B. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) and Does 2-25 arising from Plaintiff’s alleged sexual abuse while Plaintiff attended Alain Leroy High School, which was operated by Defendant, during the 2005-2006 school year on causes of action for:

1. Negligence;

2. Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision;

3. Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate;

4. Negligent Supervision of a Minor;

5. Breach of Mandatory Duty; and

6. Negligence (as to Does 2-25 only).

On February 28, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On August 15, 2024, Defendant filed: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Set One (“ROGs”); and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One (“RFPs”). On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed oppositions to Defendant’s motions. On November 6, 2024, Defendant filed replies to Plaintiff's oppositions.

Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Discussion

Defendant moves the court to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to certain form and special interrogatories. (Further ROGs Motion, at p. 5.) Defendant also moves the court to compel further responses to Defendant’s requests for production. (Further RFPs Motion, at p. 4.) Both of Defendant’s motions make a request for $1,397.50 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. (Further ROGs Motion, at p. 6; Further RFPs Motion, at p. 5.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing that Plaintiff provided verified further responses to Defendant’s discovery requests on October 11, 2024. (Further ROGs Opp., at p. 4; Further RFPs Opp., at p. 4.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements and further failed to conduct an informal discovery conference prior to filing its motions. (Ibid.) Lastly, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are not warranted since Plaintiff provided further responses in a timely manner. (Further ROGs Opp., at p. 5; Further RFPs Opp., at p. 5.)

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s verified further responses served on October 11, 2024, to Defendant’s special interrogatories 13 and 34, and form interrogatories 6.4 and 6.5 are insufficient. (Further ROGs Reply, at pp. 1-2.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s verified further responses to Defendant’s RFPs are insufficient. (Further RFPs Reply, at pp. 1-2.) Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff verified the further responses on September 18, 2024, while the responses are dated and were not served until October 11, 2024, begging the question of whether Plaintiff did in fact verify them prior to them being finalized. (Further ROGs Reply, at p. 2; Further RFPs Reply, at p. 2.)

Meet and Confer

After a review of the procedural history of the case, the court finds that the meet and confer standard required has been met here. Furthermore, the court has not been presented with any reason for why (much less evidence that would indicate that) Defendant and/or Defendant’s counsel are acting in bad faith by bringing the Further ROGs and RFPs Motions.

Special and Form Interrogatories

The following are the ROGs at issue:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Identify all documents that evidence information in support of your contention that the District negligently hired “Coach Jay”.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

Please IDENTIFY (by date, nature and amount) each expense incurred by you as a result of the subject incident for which you are seeking recovery as damages in this lawsuit.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.4:

Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;

(b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;

(d) the charges to date.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.5:

Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each medication state:

(a) the name;

(b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished it;

(d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and

(e) the cost to date.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s verified further responses to special interrogatory 13 states that a “Police Report [was] taken by the 77th precinct police department shortly after the sexual assault occurred, which is equally available to the Defendant via obtaining a subpoena…”, however, Defendant has been unable to obtain the police report with the information Plaintiff has provided. (Further ROGs Reply, at p. 2, Shaheen Decl., Exh. A.) Thus, Defendant argues that the court should order Plaintiff to provide Defendant with a copy of the police report. (Further ROGs Reply, at p. 2.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s verified further responses to special interrogatory 34 states that “[Plaintiff] has not been able to complete her investigation and discovery in order to ascertain her full expenses. They will be supplemented upon obtaining them.” (Further ROGs Reply, at p. 2, Shaheen Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response is insufficient, especially since Plaintiff signed the verification of her responses almost a month before the responses were served. (Id., at p. 2.) Thus, Defendant argues that since it is entitled to ascertain Plaintiff’s damages to properly evaluate the case, the court should order Plaintiff to provide a second further response to special interrogatory 34. (Ibid.)

In relation to form interrogatories 6.4 and 6.5, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has indicated that she received treatment and has taken medications as a result of the subject incident, however, Plaintiff has not provided any costs to date. (Ibid.) Thus, Defendant argues that since it is entitled to ascertain Plaintiff’s medical expenses to properly evaluate the case, the court should order Plaintiff to provide a second further response to these form interrogatories. (Ibid.)

The ROGs sufficiently request information that is relevant to this matter and are sufficiently narrow in scope.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s subsequent responses include boilerplate objections, which the court does not find to be meritorious. Specifically, objections that point to sources but then tell Defendant to find the information themselves are not sufficient answers to the special and form interrogatories. Rather, those are evasive responses that do not actually answer the ROGs. Plaintiff must answer the ROGs herself, even if Defendant has access to the same information.

The court grants the Further ROGs Motion.

Requests for Production

The following are the RFPs at issue:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 22:

Copies of any police report or any other report regarding any alleged abuse or complaints regarding “Coach Jay”.

Defendant argues that in response to requests for production 22 and various others, Plaintiff identified her medical records but has not produced any medical records to date relating to the subject incident making Plaintiff’s responses insufficient. (Further RFPs Reply, at p. 2.)

Here, Plaintiff’s further responses to the RPDs are also boilerplate and without merit. Nearly all the subsequent responses to the RPDs are the exact same objection. If there are documents to be provided in response to the RPDs, they should be provided. The objections made are too general and without merit, thus overruled.

The court grants the Further RPDs Motion.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,397.50 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in each of Defendant’s motions for a total of $2,795.00. (Further ROGs Motion, at p. 6; Further RFPs Motion, at p. 5.)

Plaintiff argues that sanctions are not warranted since Plaintiff provided further responses in a timely manner on October 11, 2024, in accordance with the parties agreed upon deadlines. (Further ROGs Opp., at p. 5; Further RFPs Opp., at p. 5.) Plaintiff further contends that no meet and confer efforts were made prior to Defendant’s motions being filed as the meet and confer email was sent to an old service list and was not received by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Further ROGs Opp., at p. 6; Further RFPs Opp., at p. 6.) Plaintiff argues that there was no informal discovery conference conducted as required by this court, which, if that had been timely done, the instant motions would not have been filed. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also argues that Plaintiff was not using gamesmanship or strategy to withhold information in the discovery process as Plaintiff has provided all the information and documents Plaintiff has. (Ibid.)

Since the court has granted both of Defendant’s motions, sanctions are warranted. Additionally, 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 monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Defendant’s counsel declares: (1) that they charge $215.00 per hour in this matter; (2) that they worked 3.50 hours on the motion; (3) that they anticipate spending 2.00 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and preparing a reply; and (4) that they anticipate spending 1.00 hour at the hearing for this matter per motion. (Further ROGs Motion, Shaheen Decl., ¶ 7; Further RFPs Motion, Shaheen Decl., ¶ 7.) A total of 13.00 hours.

The hourly rate claimed is reasonable, but the number of hours claimed is not. The court awards 6.50 hours of work at the requested hourly rate. A total of $1,397.50 in monetary sanctions for Defendant against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

Conclusion

1. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

2. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Defendant’s ROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this court’s order.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,397.50.