Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21AHCV00134, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00134    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Aziza Georgian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against US GC Investment, LP (“Defendant”), New Prosperity Investment LLC (“New Prosperity”), and Youhong Fu. On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed six motions for orders compelling Defendant and New Prosperity to serve verified discovery responses to interrogatories and inspection demands, and deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission. Plaintiff also requested sanctions.

On September 27, 2023, Defendant and New Prosperity filed an omnibus declaration from their counsel, Charles C. McKenna, in which counsel stated that a change in staff resulted in the discovery requests being overlooked. (McKenna Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) At the hearing on October 4, 2023, the Court granted Mr. McKenna’s requests for a one-month continuance so that his office could provide additional verified responses. The Court continued the hearing on these motions to November 13, 2023.

As of November 9, 2023, the Court has not received any additional filings and there is no indication that verified responses have been served.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1888) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.) Therefore, although Defendant and New Prosperity may have served responses, the motions are not mooted and will not be taken off calendar because verifications for those responses have not been served yet.

Accordingly, based on the Court record, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant and New Prosperity’s discovery responses are GRANTED. Defendant and New Prosperity are each ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within 20 days of the date of this order.

With respect to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One), the motions are GRANTED. The truth of the matters within each set of Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded on Defendant and New Prosperity is deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).))

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)Also, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . 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).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he bills at a rate of $500 for this matter and requests $1,064.77 for each motion. The Court finds this amount excessive considering that each motion only required limited legal analysis and is largely boilerplate. Therefore, sanctions are granted and imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,548.62, consisting of 7 hours at the reasonable rate of $300 (allotting one hour for each motion and an additional hour to attend the hearing) and $448.62 for the cost to file each motion.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.