Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV19088, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19088    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Ulrike Zillner (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Maple Street Burbank Homeowners Association (“Defendant”) to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set Three, number 17.1. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.  

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

DISCUSSION

Here, on March 31, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set Three on Defendant. Plaintiff granted extensions until May 30, 2023. (Salumbides Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. A.) On May 30, 2023, Defendant served objections to the discovery. (Id. ¶ 10, Exh. D.) Plaintiff argues the objections are baseless and asks the Court to order Defendant to serve complete and verified responses to the discovery.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff should have filed a motion to compel further responses, and that Plaintiff also failed to follow the procedures in the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order. Defendant further argues that its objections were valid.

In reply, Plaintiff argues a motion to compel is appropriate since Defendant did not verify the responses.

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)¿¿However, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250(a) [emphasis added].) Here, because Defendant’s response contains only objections, a verification is not required. Therefore, a motion to compel is not appropriate, but rather a motion to compel further under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which requires the moving party to meet and confer, schedule and attend an informal discovery conference, and file a separate statement. Moreover, even if the Court were to excuse the procedural defects, Plaintiff has not included a copy of the RFAs to which Form Interrogatory 17.1 refers, nor has sufficiently addressed Defendant’s objections.

Therefore, the motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set Three is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.