Lawzilla Additional Information: This matter was apparently taken off calendar and no final ruling was made.

Case Number: BC711405 Hearing Date: August 20, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

BRIAN CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SALIM OSMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC711405

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 20, 2019

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories and request for identification, inspection, and production of documents on Defendant on October 11, 2018. Defendant’s counsel served unverified responses on December 28, 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel called and spoke to Defendant’s counsel regarding the missing verifications on February 27, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendant’s counsel’s request for an extension until March 11, 2019 to serve verifications to the subject discovery. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email informing him that Plaintiff’s counsel’s office still had not received the verifications. Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension until July 12, 2019 for Defendant to provide verifications. Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a response email on July 11, 2019, requesting an additional extension until July 19, 2019 to produce verifications. Plaintiff’s counsel granted this request. To date, Defendant has not provided verifications to his responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks orders compelling Defendant to provide verified responses without objections, to the outstanding discovery requests. Plaintiff also seeks orders for Defendant to pay sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motions are granted. Although Defendant served responses on December 28, 2018, the responses were unverified. Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all and are subject to a motion to compel responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 CaL.App.3d 632, 635-36.) As such, Defendant is ordered to serve verifications to form interrogatories (set one) and request for identification, inspection, and production of documents (set one) within ten days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel I the amount of $1,060.00 for each motion. Sanctions are mandatory unless the party failing to timely respond to the discovery requests acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Although Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for sanctions to be excessive, given the motions are unopposed and virtually identical. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in a total amount of $870.00 (1 hour for preparing the motions at $250/hr, 2 hours for appearance time at $250/hr, plus $120.00 in filing fees). Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record are ordered to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $870.00 within twenty days.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.