Case Number: 18STCV10327 Hearing Date: August 20, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

GERARDO VELASQUEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFREY VENTURINI,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 18STCV10327

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GERARDO VELASQUEZ’S RESPONSES TO (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); (2) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); AND (3) DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GRISELDA VELASQUEZ’S RESPONSES TO (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); (2) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); AND (3) DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 20, 2019

Defendant Jefrey Venturini’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Gerardo Velasquez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) are Moot in light of Plaintiff Gerardo Velasquez serving verifications to his responses on August 7, 2019.

Defendant Jefrey Venturini’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Griselda Velasquez’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Griselda Velasquez is ordered to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within fifteen days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Plaintiff Gerardo Velasquez and Griselda Velasquez and Plaintiffs’ attorney or record, Fred Hanassab, Esq. of the Law Offices of Fred Hanassab, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,260.00. Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Fred Hanassab, Esq., are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,260.00, within thirty days.

Defendant propounded its first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for inspection and production of documents on Plaintiffs on March 29, 2019. (Schubert Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs failed to provide any responses. As of the date of the filing of the subject motions, July 12, 2019, Defendant had not received Plaintiffs’ discovery responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide verified responses, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ oppositions consist only of declarations of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Fred Hanassab (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he lost contact with Plaintiffs and had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Plaintiffs by telephone. (Hanassab Decl., ¶ 7.) Despite lacking contact with Plaintiffs, Counsel states that unverified discovery responses were served on July 17, 2019. Subsequently, Counsel was able to reestablish communication with Gerardo Velasquez on July 30, 2019, and Counsel subsequently served Defendant with Gerardo Velasquez’s verification to the said discovery responses on August 7, 2019. (Hanassab Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff Gerardo Velasquez’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) are MOOT.

Regarding Plaintiff Gliselda Velasquez, however, Counsel attests to still being unable to contact his client. Counsel attests to “currently making any and all reasonable efforts to provide Defense Counsel with Plaintiff’s verifications.” (Hanassab Decl., ¶ 12.) It is well established, however, that “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 (even though responses were provided they were not verified), citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

Being that Plaintiff Gliselda Velasquez has failed to serve verified responses, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff Gliselda Velasquez’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) are GRANTED.

Sanctions are mandatory. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).) “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).)

Plaintiffs argue that requests for sanctions should be denied because there were no intentions on Plaintiffs’ part to delay the discovery process. Rather, Plaintiffs’ counsel attests to having lost contact with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs provide no explanation, however, for the long delay in providing any responses to Defendant, the efforts made to attempt to locate Plaintiffs, or for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel over the issue. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances.

Defendant seeks sanctions in the total amount of $3,960.00 in connection with the six motions ($660.00 per motion). The Court finds one hour to prepare each of these motions to compel is sufficient to compensate Defendant. The Court therefore awards a total of 6 hours of attorney time at $150.00/hour, or $900.00 in attorneys’ fees. (See Schubert Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court also awards six filing fees of $60 each for a total of $360 in costs. (See id.) The Sanctions are sought and awarded against Plaintiffs Gerardo Velasquez, Gliselda Velasquez, and their attorney of record, Fred Hanassab, Esq. of Law Offices of Fred Hanassab, jointly and severally.

Moving party to give notice.