Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV02301, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV02301, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02301 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Of Plaintiff To Compel Verified Responses By Alexandra Imelda Rodriguez Aka Imelda Alexandra Lopez To The Form Interrogatories, Set One, And Request For Sanctions; Motion Of Plaintiff To Compel Verified Responses By Irbusiness, Inc. To The Form Interrogatories, Set One, And Request For Sanctions; Motion Of Plaintiff Compel Verified Responses By Alexandra Imelda Rodriguez Aka Imelda Alexandra Lopez To The Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For Sanctions; Motion Of Plaintiff To Compel Verified Responses By Irbusiness, Inc. To The Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For Sanctions.

All four motions are granted.

Background

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants for alleged violation of the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”) Plaintiff has filed four motions to compel Defendants IRBusiness, Inc. and Alexandra Imelda Rodriguez (“Defendants”) to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories and document requests, and for sanctions against each Defendant in the amount of $2,560.00. Defendants oppose the motions.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories and document requests under oath. CCP §§ 2020.010(a), 2030.210(a); 2031.250(a). An unverified discovery response is treated as no response. Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545, 549; Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636-37. In such a case, the propounding party may seek to compel verified responses. See id.

CCP § 2015.5 provides that a verification must be signed under penalty of perjury and state the date and place of execution. “[C]ourts do not find compliance with section 2015.5 to be both substantial and sufficient unless all statutory conditions appear on the face of the declaration in some form.” Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th601, 612.

Generally, courts must impose monetary sanctions against parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. Inadvertence has been excusable under various circumstances. Cf., e.g., CCP §2030.290(a), 2031.300(a) (“The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver, based upon conditions that response in substantial compliance was served, and the failure was result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.”). [Emphasis added.]

Analysis

Here, Defendants served responses on 11/20/2023 without verifications. Defendants contend that after Plaintiff filed the motions, Defendants served verifications on 1/3/2024 and such verifications moot the motions. Defendants also argue sanctions are not appropriate. The verifications provided by Defendants are legally invalid under CCP § 2015.5. They are not dated and do not state the place of execution. Nor are they signed under penalty of perjury. And the verification for Defendant IRBusiness does not state that the signatory is an officer of the entity, or some other authorized agent authorized and/or competent to verify the responses. CCP §§ 2030.250(b), 2031.250(b) (providing that a corporate entity’s verification to interrogatories and document requests must be signed by “one of its officers or agents”). Defendants’ failure to serve proper verifications before the hearing is tantamount to not serving responses at all.

Therefore, all four motions are granted. On or before 1/29/24, Defendant ALEXANDRA IMELDA RODRIGUEZ and Defendant IRBUSINESS, INC. shall serve further verified responses, and produce documents, without objections, and in full compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2015.5 and 2016.010 et seq., as to the form interrogatories and requests for documents served by moving party.

The Court also finds that Defendants’ failure to provide code-compliant responses is not substantially justified and warrants sanctions. Defendants had months to provide legally valid verifications to the responses and their failure to do so has resulted in costly motion practice. On or before 1/29/24, Defendant ALEXANDRA IMELDA RODRIGUEZ shall pay discovery sanctions in the total sum of $5,120.00 to Plaintiff, and Defendant IRBUSINESS, INC. shall pay discovery sanctions in the total sum of $5,120, to Plaintiff.