Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV14157, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14157    Hearing Date: February 21, 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

            Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Gloria Kaye’s (Plaintiff) responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant 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

Defendant asserts that on July 20, 2023, it served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Extensions to respond, without objections, were granted until October 4, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she suffered a stroke on September 1, 2023, and cannot speak or understand words. (Bredlau Decl. ¶ 2.) On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff served responses explaining this situation and that a reasonable effort was made to respond to the interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff argues the motion to compel is moot.

In reply, Defendant argues that the motion is not moot since the responses are not verified. 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.)¿¿Given Plaintiff’s incapacity, Defendant argues the Court should grant the motion and allow Plaintiff to have a conservator or guardian ad litem verify the responses. Defendant also mentions that it sent correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel on September 19, 2023 and October 2, 2023, prior to bringing this motion. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 2c.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. Also, based on the record, it does not appear Plaintiff has filed an application for a guardian ad litem. Therefore, because verified responses have not been served, the motion to compel is granted.

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for $1,560. This amount represents an hourly rate of $250 and the $60 filing fee. Given the type of motion at issue, the Court finds this amount is excessive and reduces it to $435 (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve properly verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within 20 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $435. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.