Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV30067, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV30067, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV30067 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 29

Rivera v. Onyx Glendale
22STCV30067
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.

Background

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Gisela Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Onyx Glendale and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an incident on July 20, 2020, in which, Plaintiff alleges she was trapped in an elevator.

On March 5, 2024, Defendant MCP Onyx, LLC (erroneously sued as Onyx Glendale) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff these two motions: (1) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant filed oppositions on February 28, and Plaintiff filed replies on March 6.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “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 [the motion], 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., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 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.) “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Defendant requested, and Plaintiff agreed to, four extensions of time for Defendant to respond; with the extensions, Defendant’s responses were due on January 7, 2025. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.)

No responses were received by January 7. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff offered an extension to January 20. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.) On January 21, Defendant emailed Plaintiff and stated, “I am still obtaining information from in-house counsel and anticipate I can have them to you by the end of the week.” (Id., Exhs. C.)

No responses were received that week. (Id., ¶ 5.) On February 11, Plaintiff emailed and stated that because no responses had been served, Plaintiff intended to file a motion to compel unless the responses were received the next day. (Id. ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.)

Plaintiff filed this motion on February 18, 2025. As of that day, no responses had been received. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendant’s counsel states that he “attempted to serve” responses by email on January 27 but counsel received a message that the delivery “had been delayed” because the email “exceeded Google’s message size limits.” (Salas Decls., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. A-B.) The message stated that this was a “warning message only” and advised, “You do not need to resend your message.” (Id., Exhs. B.)

When Plaintiff advised Defendant that Plaintiff had not received the responses on February 11, Defendant responded that same day by resending the email with the responses attached. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhd. D.) Defendant received the same “warning message.” (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhs. E.)

On February 19, two days after being served with this motion to compel, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff with a Dropbox link to the discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exhs. F.)

Plaintiff states that the responses received on February 19 were not verified and are not code-compliant. (Sarukhanyan Reply Decls., ¶¶ 6-7.)

On this record, the motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff propounded discovery in October 2024, and even now, five months later, Defendant has not provided verified responses. A response must be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) Unverified discovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted in part. Failing to provide a verified discovery response is not substantially justified, and there are no other circumstances present that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Taking into account the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions for each motion in the amount of $760, based on two attorneys of attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 6.)

The Court expresses no view on whether the unverified responses are or are not otherwise code-compliant.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant and counsel of record Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,520 to Plaintiff (through counsel of record) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.