Case Number: BC640444 Hearing Date: June 25, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

shanekqua jackson, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

woodburn housing, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 640444

Hearing Date:

June 25, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT WOODBURN HOUSING, LLC’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF; TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,600.00

Background

This action arises out of damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs during their tenancy in a building owned by Defendant Woodburn Housing, LLC (“Woodburn”). The Complaint, filed November 10, 2016, asserts causes of action for negligent maintenance, nuisance, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligent violation of statutory and legal duties, intentional violations of statutory and legal duties, and constructive eviction.

On December 22, 2017, Woodburn propounded Requests for Admission (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) (collectively, the “Written Discovery”) on Plaintiff Shanekqua Jackson (“Jackson”). (Shaffie Decl., ¶ 4, Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4.) On February 9, 2018, Woodburn received responses to the Written Discovery but no verifications from Jackson were included with the responses. (Shaffie Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4.) Jackson subsequently served supplemental responses to some of the Requests for Admission (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set Two). (Shaffie Decl., ¶ 8, Exs. D-1, D-2.) No verifications for the supplemental responses were served. (Shaffie Decl., ¶ 9.) Counsel for Woodburn has attempted to meet and confer regarding the missing verifications on a number of occasions, to no avail. (Shaffie Decl., ¶¶ 7, 10-13.)

Woodburn now moves to compel Jackson to provide verifications for her responses to the Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) as well as to produce documents responsive to Request for Production of Documents, nos. 140-146. Woodburn also moves to have the Requests for Admission (Set One) deemed admitted. Lastly, Woodburn moves for an award of monetary sanctions against Jackson and her counsel in the amount of $3,600.00. No opposition to the motion to compel was filed.

Discussion

Responses to interrogatories, requests for admission, and inspection demands must be signed under oath unless the responses contain only objections. ((Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, 2031.250, 2033.240.) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” ((Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) If the response contains both answer and objections, the portion containing fact-specific responses must be verified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 [“The omission of the verification in the portion of the response containing fact-specific responses merely renders that portion of the response untimely and therefore only creates a right to move for orders and sanctions under subdivision (k) of section 2031 as to those responses….” (emphasis in original)].)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) Of the unverified responses served by Jackson to the Requests for Admission (Set One), nos. 48, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are the only responses that are wholly composed of objections. No verification was required for responses containing only objections, and so those responses are timely. Therefore, all Requests for Admission (Set One) except nos. 48, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are deemed admitted.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) Here, Jackson’s responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), nos. 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 127, and 128 contain only objections. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to compel as to all of the responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) except nos. 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 127, and 128. There were no objections to the Form Interrogatories (Set Two), so the Court grants the motion to compel as to the entirety of Form Interrogatories (Set Two).

If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b).) Here, Jackson’s responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two), nos. 140-147 contain only objections. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to compel as to all of the response to the Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) except nos. 140-147. Woodburn also seeks an order compelling Jackson to produce documents responsive to nos. 140-147[1], which relate to documents from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“CFS”). Specifically, the requests seek documents that relate to any complaints made about Jackson or her children to CFS during her tenancy, documents that relate to communications between CFS and Jackson during her tenancy, and documents that relate to any instances where Jackson’s children were removed from Jackson’s custody by CFS during and after her tenancy. (See Shaffie Decl., Ex. A-2.) Jackson objected to these requests on the basis that they are overly broad, irrelevant, and violative of her privacy rights. Woodburn contends that these documents are relevant because Plaintiff has moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint that includes allegations that CFS was called to the subject property as a result of conditions purportedly caused by Woodburn. First of all, the supplemental complaint has not yet been filed, so the relevance of any discovery as to these allegations is not so clear. Even if the mere act of moving to include these allegations in the complaint were sufficient to make them relevant, the Court finds that the requests as worded are overbroad as to scope and do implicate Jackson’s privacy rights. Therefore, the Court sustains the objections to Request for Production of Documents, nos. 140-147.

In terms of the sanctions amount, counsel for Woodburn attests to the fact that he has spent 13 hours attempting to meet and confer with opposing counsel, 5.8 hours preparing the instant motion, and expects to spend an additional 3 hours analyzing the opposition and preparing a reply as well as an additional 2 hours to attend the hearing on this matter, all at a rate of $300 per hour. (Shaffie Decl., ¶ 16.) However, counsel is only requesting sanctions in the reduced amount of $3,600. The Court notes that Woodburn brought a combined discovery motion (interrogatories, inspection demand, and admissions), and that the Court did not grant the entire relief sought of Woodburn, so further reduction in the sanctions amount would be appropriate. In any case, because no opposition was filed, the Court decreases the total monetary sanctions by an additional 3 hours and will award a total of $2,700 to Woodburn for the fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants in part and denies in part Woodburn’s motion, as follows: the Requests for Admission (Set One) except for nos. 48, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are deemed admitted; Jackson is ordered to serve verifications for her responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) except nos. 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 127, and 128, for her responses and supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), and for her responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) except nos. 140-147, within 10 days of this Order. Jackson is further ordered to pay to Woodburn monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,700 within 30 days of this Order.

Woodburn is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: June 25, 2018

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

[1] Though Woodburn only identifies nos. 140-146 in its motion at p. 4, line 18, the Court assumes Woodburn intended to include no. 147 as well.