Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2021-01207553 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01207553, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Application), filed on 4-8-22 under ROA No. 333, is DENIED without prejudice. (The Notice for this Application was filed on 4-8-22 under ROA No. 332.)

Although the declaration of Emily C. Finestone complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d), the Proof of Service (filed on 4-8-22 under ROA No. 335) does not show service of the Application on the State Bar of California as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c). Further, Moving Party does not provide a declaration indicating that the Applicant or Moving Party has paid the fee required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e). Therefore, the court DENIES Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission, filed on 4-8-22 under ROA No. 333, without prejudice.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Its First Form Interrogatories—General (Motion), filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 294, is GRANTED. (The Notice for this Motion was filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 293.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” Appleton v. Superior Ct. (Appleton) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636, states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citation.]”

On 12-20-21, Moving Party served Responding Party (Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao) with “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One.” (Schalk Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 2.) After an extension to provide responses, Responding Party served Moving Party with unverified responses to this discovery request on 2-2-22. (Schalk Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.)

Since Responding Party did not provide a verification with Responding Party’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Responding Party has not provided timely responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. Therefore, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Its First Form Interrogatories—General filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 294. The court orders Responding Party to provide verified responses, without objections, to “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One” (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.250; Schalk Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 2) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), states, “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 a response to interrogatories, 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. . . .” The court awards a monetary sanction of $1,800.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Schalk Decl., Decl., ¶ 20; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Further Responses to Its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (Motion), filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 302, is GRANTED. (The Notice for this Motion was filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 301.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states in part, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” Appleton v. Superior Ct. (Appleton) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636, states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citation.]”

On 10-22-21, Moving Party served Responding Party (Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao) with “Paradigm Sports Management LLC’s Requests for the Production of Documents to Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao.” (Schalk Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 1.) Responding Party served unverified responses to this discovery request on 11-23-21. (Schalk Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 2.) After meeting and conferring, Responding Party has not provided supplemental responses. (Schalk Decl., ¶¶ 5-24, and Exhibits 3-12.)

Since Responding Party did not provide a verification with Responding Party’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Responding Party has not provided timely responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. Therefore, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Further Responses to Its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 302. The court orders Responding Party to provide verified responses, without objections, to “Paradigm Sports Management LLC’s Requests for the Production of Documents to Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao” (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.250; Schalk Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 1) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), states, “Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. . . .” The court awards a monetary sanction of $1,800.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Schalk Decl., Decl., ¶ 28; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Moving Party’s (Paradigm Sports Management, LLC) unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Its Requests for Admission, Set One (Motion), filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 310, is GRANTED. (The Notice for this Motion was filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 309.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.)” Appleton v. Superior Ct. (Appleton) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636, states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citation.]”

On 12-20-21, Moving Party served Responding Party (Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao) with “Paradigm Sports Management LLC’s Requests for Admission to Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao.” (Schalk Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 2.) After an extension to provide responses, Responding Party served Moving Party with unverified responses to this discovery request on 2-2-22. (Schalk Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.)

The court orders that “. . . the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in . . .” “Paradigm Sports Management LLC’s Requests for Admission to Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao” (Schalk Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 2.) be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), states in part, “. . . 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.” The court awards a monetary sanction of $1,800.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Schalk Decl., Decl., ¶ 20; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Moving Party is to give notice.