Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV11485, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11485    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff Kelly Duangrudeeswat (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Long Beach Public Transportation Company (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “Long Beach Transit”) and Rodney Jones for injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred on October 7, 2019.

          On June 17, 2022, Defendant filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Identification and Production of Documents and to deem its Requests for Admissions admitted.  No oppositions were filed.

          On August 9, 2022, the Court found Defendant failed to attach copies of the discovery requests and responses that are the subject of these motions.  The Court continued the hearing on these motions to August 23, 2022, so that Defendant could submit evidence of the discovery requests and responses that are at issue.  Defendant was to file the additional documentation no later than August 16, 2022.

          On August 16, 2022, Defendant filed supplemental declarations attaching the discovery requests and responses.  The Court will thus rule on the merits of these motions.

Compel Responses and Deem RFAs Admitted

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses and deeming requests for admissions admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a), 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) 

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all and are subject to a motion to compel responses rather than a motion to compel further responses.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)

A review of Plaintiff’s responses shows that Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery requests consist of a mix of objections and responses.  (Sullivan Suppl. Decls., ¶ 4, Exs. B.)  Specifically, Plaintiff’s responses to each request in the Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions contain both objections and substantive responses.  To the extent Plaintiff’s responses contain objections, these objections need not be verified.  (Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345; Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)  Because objections need not be verified, Plaintiff is deemed to have in fact served responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Identification and Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.  This is not a situation where Plaintiff served only unverified substantive responses to these discovery requests such that these unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all.  Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to court orders directing Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Identification and Production of Documents, and a court order deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted.  Rather, if Defendant takes issue with any of these responses, Defendant’s recourse is to bring motions to compel further responses.

As for the Form Interrogatories, it appears that while some of Plaintiff’s responses contain both objections and substantive responses, some of the Plaintiff’s responses contain only substantive responses.  Specifically, Plaintiff has provided only substantive responses (i.e., without any objections) to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.5, 13.2, 20.1, 20.2, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, and 20.11.  As these substantive responses need to be verified, the lack of verification means that Plaintiff has not provided any responses to these Form Interrogatories.  (Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-36.)  Defendant is thus entitled to a court order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.5, 13.2, 20.1, 20.2, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, and 20.11. 

To the extent the other Form Interrogatories contain both objections and substantive responses, Defendant is not entitled to a court order compelling verified responses to those Form Interrogatories for the same reasons Defendant is not entitled to court orders compelling responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Identification and Production of Documents, and a court order deeming the Requests for Admissions admitted—i.e., Plaintiff has in fact served responses to those Form Interrogatories.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Identification and Production of Documents are DENIED.  Defendant’s motion to deem Requests for Admissions admitted is DENIED.

Plaintiff Kelly Duangrudeeswat is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant Long Beach Public Transportation Company’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.5, 13.2, 20.1, 20.2, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, and 20.11 within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant has not requested any monetary sanctions.  Therefore, no monetary sanctions are being awarded.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.