Case Number: BC640049 Hearing Date: May 16, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Jesus O. Zamora, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC640049

Hearing Date: May 16, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motions to compel PLAINTIFFS’ further responses TO Requests for Admission

[RESERVATION 171129270511]

On November 30, 2017, defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) filed four motions to compel further responses from plaintiffs Angeline Fontes, Sergio Fontes, Diego Fontes,[1] and Jesus Zamora (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to Defendant’s Requests for Admission (“RFA”), set one.

An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held on February 5, 2018. The Informal Discovery Conference Form for the February 5, 2018 IDC indicates that the discovery issues were resolved following the IDC. The Court’s February 5, 2018 Minute Order likewise reflects that “[t]he Informal Discovery Conference is held and resolved.” Accordingly, the Court ordered the moving party to take the motions off calendar upon receipt of the discovery responses. (2/5/18 Minute Order.) However, the moving party found that the further responses were not adequate and thus moved forward with the instant motions and hearing. Before the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint statement relating to the remaining issues in dispute as to each party. The joint statement was filed on May 2, 2018.

Since this motion was filed, both parties agree that Plaintiffs have provided two sets of supplemental responses. The supplemental responses have been verified by Plaintiffs. In the case of the minor Plaintiffs, their guardian ad litem, Maria Zamora, signed the verifications.

General Arguments

As to Jesus Zamora’s verification, Defendant argues that the verifications provided are invalid because the verification does not contain the date or the location of execution. Defendant argues that the date and location are necessary for the verification to be valid.[2]

CCP § 2015.5 states that when any law in this state requires proof by verification, declaration, etc.,

“such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California.

Here, Jesus Zamora’s verification form include his name, signature, and a statement swearing the truth of the responses under the law of the State of California. However, the verification does not include the date of execution. Therefore, the verification is facially defective. As such, the Court compels Jesus Zamora to provide a further verification of the responses provided, including the date of execution, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

As to the minor Plaintiffs, Defendant generally argues that their responses are inadequate because the verifications provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel are “suspect.” Defendant points out that Plaintiffs’ counsel represented at prior hearings and in prior motions that he was having difficulty contacting Maria Zamora. However, Defendant provides nothing more than speculation to argue that the verifications provided by Maria Zamora are invalid. Plaintiff’s Counsel Sergio Puche is an officer of the Court as a representative of Plaintiffs. As such, the Court may take his representations as truthful. Defendant’s arguments provide no substantive evidence of fraud on the Court or on Defendant. It is not unusual for an attorney to lose contact with a client and then finally regain contact and retain the requisite verifications. Without evidence, Defendant has failed to show that the verifications for these responses are invalid. As such, the motions to compel further on the basis of improper verifications or invalid verifications are denied.

Specific Arguments as to Individual Questions

Defendant also points out several instances where Plaintiffs have failed to completely answer the request for admission. As such, the Court will provide rulings as to whether further answers are required to the specific request for admission based on the arguments of counsel. The motion to compel further is denied as to every question based on the supplemental responses provided, unless otherwise provided below. Any requirements as to Jesus Zamora as stated below are required in addition to the above required verification.

· RFA 3, 4, and 6: Granted. In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, the Court of Appeal held that if a party cannot provide a full answer or details in response to a request for discovery, then the party must set forth the efforts made to secure the information. Here, Plaintiffs have not set forth any information as to what actions they have taken to obtain the necessary information. Thus, the answers provided by all Plaintiffs are deficient.

· RFA 2 and 5:

o As to Jesus Zamora, Sergio Fontes, and Diego Fontes: Granted. In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, the Court of Appeal held that if a party cannot provide a full answer or details in response to a request for discovery, then the party must identify the efforts made to secure the information. Here, Jesus Zamora, Sergio Fontes, and Diego Fontes have not set forth any information as to what actions they have taken to obtain the necessary information. Thus, the answers provided by Jesus Zamora, Sergio Fontes, and Diego Fontes are deficient.

o As to Angeline Fontes: Denied. Plaintiff Angeline Fontes properly provided an answer to the RFA.

· RFA 9, 10, 11, and 12:

o As to Jesus Zamora, Sergio Fontes, and Diego Fontes: Denied. Plaintiffs properly provided answers to the RFA.

o As to Angeline Fontes: Denied. Each of these RFAs relates to admissions regarding the manner in which the vehicle was driven. To each answer, Plaintiff provides the following answer: “Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge or information necessary to respond to this request for admission. Plaintiff was not driving the vehicle.” Defendant claims that this answer is insufficient because Plaintiff does not explain what actions Plaintiff took to discover the information. However, the Court finds the answer given sufficient. Based on the date of birth given for Angeline Fontes in the Form Interrogatory responses (November 10, 2011), she was less than four years old at the time of the accident. As such, her lack of personal knowledge of the nature of diving during the accident is reasonable, and no further information need be disclosed.

· RFA 13, 15, 17, 18: Denied. Defendant provides additional arguments related to each of these RFAs. However, the Court finds that no further answer need be compelled. Each Plaintiff has provided an answer that either admits or denies the respective request. As such, the answers are sufficient.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions for Plaintiffs’ failure to provide complete discovery responses. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to provide complete responses to Defendant’s RFA a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel Sergio Puche. The Court grants sanctions of 4 hours in total to prepare the four motions and appear at the hearing, at $155.00 per hour, for a total of $620.00. Each Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Plaintiff’s counsel Sergio Puche for payment of monetary sanctions in the amount of $155.00 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (“RFA”), set one, is granted. Consistent with discussion above, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide code compliant responses that fully and completely respond to Defendant’s RFA, without objection, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are granted. The Court grants sanctions totaling $620.00 for all four motions to compel further responses to the RFA. Each Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Plaintiff’s counsel Sergio Puche for payment of monetary sanctions in the amount of $155.00 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future hearings will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

[1] Each of the Fontes children are appearing by and through their guardian ad litem Maria Zamora.

[2] In the joint statement, Defendant quotes language requiring the place and date of execution. However, Defendant provides no citation after the quotation. Based on the language cited, the Court assumes that Defendant is citing to CCP § 2015.5.