Case Number: BC640049 Hearing Date: May 14, 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 14, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motions to compel PLAINTIFFS’ further responses TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

[RESERVATION 171130270610]

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 Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), 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 April 30, 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. Plaintiff 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 these 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 questions asked in the FROG. As such, the Court will provide rulings as to whether further answers are required to the specific questions 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.

· FI 2.2: Granted. Each Plaintiff must specify his/her place of birth.

· FI 2.5:

o As to Jesus Zamora: Granted. The party must provide his residence for the last 5 years before the incident as well as the dates that he lived at those residences. If there is a current address for the party, then it must be provided.

o As to the minor Plaintiffs: Granted. The parties must provide the dates that they lived at the prior addresses.

· FI 2.6:

o As to Jesus Zamora: Granted. The party must provide complete information as required in the question relating to his work experience in the past 5 years. In 8.2 Plaintiff claims to have been self-employed. Any employment in the past 5 years must be included in the answer to FI 2.6.

o As to Sergio Fontes: Granted. The party must state whether he has worked in the past five years. Stating that this information is “unknown” is not sufficient.

· FI 2.7: Denied. Defendant contends that the answer is unsatisfactory because the party answered “unknown.” However, the second supplemental response provided a detailed answer. Thus, there is no grounds to compel a further answer as to Sergio Fontes to FI 2,7.

· FI 2.9:

o As to Jesus Zamora: Granted. The party indicates that English is not the language he speaks with ease, but does not state which language he does speak. Thus, Jesus Zamora is compelled to provide which language he is able to speak with ease.

o As to the minor Plaintiffs: Denied. The Court finds that the questions were sufficiently answered in the positive.

· FI 2.10:

o As to Jesus Zamora: Granted. The party indicates that English is not the language he reads or writes with ease, but does not state which language he does read and write. Thus, Jesus Zamora is compelled to provide which language he is able to read and write.

o As to the minor Plaintiffs: Denied. The Court finds that the questions were sufficiently answered in the positive.

· FI 6.2: Granted. The supplemental responses state the areas of the body affected by the incident, but do not adequately identify the specific injuries that are complained of. Thus, all Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further responses stating the injuries suffered as well as the part of the body affected.

· FI 6.3: Granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a description as to whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or worsening and include the frequency of duration of the complaint.

· FI: 6.5: Granted as to the minor Plaintiffs. All objections were waived by the untimely production of the responses. The minor Plaintiffs are ordered to provide answers to this question without objection.

· FI 6.6: Granted. Plaintiffs did not provide answers to each subpart of FI 6.6. As such, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide complete answers to each sub part of FI 6.6.

· FI 8.2: Granted as to Jesus Zamora. Plaintiff did not provide answers to each subpart of FI 8.2. As such, Plaintiff is ordered to provide complete answers to each sub part of FI 8.2.

· FI 8.4: Granted as to Jesus Zamora. Plaintiff did not answer the question. The question called for the monthly income of the party at the time of the incident and how it was calculated. Plaintiff provided the dates of work. Jesus Zamora is ordered to provide a complete answer to FI 8.4.

· FI 8.8: Granted as to Jesus Zamora and Sergio Fontes. The parties did not provide responses to sub parts (b) through (d).

· FI 11.1: Granted as to Jesus Zamora. In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, the Court of Appeal held that if a party cannot provide information to answer a request for discovery, then the party must list the efforts set forth to secure the information. Thus, the answer provided by Jesus Zamora is deficient.

· FI 11.2: Granted as to Jesus Zamora. In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, the Court of Appeal held that if a party cannot provide information to answer a request for discovery, then the party must list the efforts set forth to secure the information. Thus, the answer provided by Jesus Zamora is deficient.

· FI 17.1: Granted as to all Plaintiffs. In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, the Court of Appeal held that if a party cannot provide information to answer a request for discovery, then the party must list the efforts set forth to secure the information. Thus, the answer provided by Plaintiffs are deficient.

· FI 20.3 & 20.4: Denied. Inconsistency in responses is not a ground to compel further answers. The responding party may supplement or change answers upon new information.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions for Plaintiffs’ failure to provide complete discovery responses. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to provide complete responses to Defendant’s discovery request a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court grants sanctions of 8 hours in total to prepare the four motions and appear at the hearing, at $155.00 per hour, for a total of $1,240.00. Each Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Plaintiff’s counsel for payment of monetary sanctions in the amount of $310.00 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.