Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV48494, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48494    Hearing Date: March 18, 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

            Cross-Complainants’ Grayson Davila, Haley Davila, Kayla Davila, and Natalie Davila (“Cross Complainants”) move to compel Defendant Jaime Rafael Duran Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Cross-Complainants seek monetary sanctions. Defendants America’s Bin Company, Inc. and Jaime Gonzalez (“Defendants”) oppose and Cross Complainants reply.

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, Cross Complainant served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Gonzalez on October 10, 2023. (Pincin Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) On November 14, 2023, Gonzalez served unverified responses. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) As of the date of filing the motion, Gonzalez had not served a verification. (Id. ¶ 7.) 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.)¿¿

In opposition, Defendants assert that Gonzalez served a verification on February 6, 2024. (Pascale Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 1.) Defendants were unable to provide a verification earlier because Defendants were not in contact with Gonzalez, who is no longer employed with America’s Bin Company, Inc. (Id. ¶ 2, 5.) As such, Defendants argue the motion is moot and sanctions are not warranted since Defendants’ counsel has been on medical leave throughout the pendency of this discovery. (Opp., 4.)

In light of the above, the motion to compel is denied as moot.

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted due to the discovery abuse, but the amount requested is excessive given the type of motion at issue. Moreover, the opposition demonstrates that Defendant’s attorney did not counsel the discovery abuse, and therefore the Court awards sanctions as to Defendant only. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $660 (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee) as to Defendant.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED as moot.

Defendant Jaime Gonzalez is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 due payable to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

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