Case Number: BC692972 Hearing Date: October 17, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

County of Los angeles,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRyan Alexis Gonzalez, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC692972

Hearing Date: October 17, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’S motions to deem admitted and to compel discovery responses from Defendant Selena Felix

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff County of Los Angeles (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion to compel responses from defendant Selena Felix (“Defendant”) to the Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. Plaintiff has also filed a second motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one.

On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff served the discovery requests on Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant inquiring as to the lack of responses on June 14, 2018. As of the filing of the motions on August 10, 2018, Plaintiff had not received any responses from Defendant. Defendant did not file any opposition to Plaintiff’s motions.

This motion was originally heard on October 4, 2018. At the hearing, Defendant appeared and stated that she thought that she hired a paralegal to serve responses to the RFA and FROG on her behalf, but she did not bring any proof with her to court, and she was unable to identify the date on which the paralegal purportedly served the responses. Plaintiff’s counsel advised that no such responses had been received. The Court granted Defendant’s request to continue the hearing to the instant date to allow Defendant another opportunity to serve verified responses. Defendant was ordered to file and serve proof of service of verified responses to the RFA and FROG no later than October 11, 2018. Plaintiff was also ordered to provide a supplemental declaration as to the status of the service of the responses.

No supplemental filing or proof of service has been filed by Defendant since the October 4, 2018 hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration on October 15, 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel states in the declaration that Defendant provided via facsimile some pages of the responses to the FROG, but page 4 of the document was missing. In addition, Defendant’s responses to the FROG were not verified. Plaintiff did not ever receive any responses to the RFA.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the FROG is granted pursuant to CCP § 2030.290. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Thus, Defendant’s unverified responses to the FROG sent via facsimile are insufficient. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED

Plaintiff also moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the RFA admitted. Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing (1) that the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFA admitted. Nor has Defendant otherwise demonstrated that Defendant has served, before the hearing on this motion, a proposed response to the RFA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Defendant. The Court grants sanctions for 2.5 hours to prepare the motions and appear at the hearing, at $160.00 per hour, for a total of $400.00. Defendant Selena Felix is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to deem admitted and to compel responses to the FROG are granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2033.280(c). Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the requests for admissions as of this date.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Selena Felix is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: October 17, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court