Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 21STCV19810, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

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.

Plaintiff states that on May 31, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendant Wadie Simaan, and on May 25, 2023, served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendant Jouhaina Simaan. On July 5, 2023, counsel for both defendants served unverified responses consisting solely of objections. (Ter-ogaensyan Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendants oppose the motions to compel, arguing that Defendants did respond to the discovery request by serving objections, and that Plaintiffs’ motions therefore must be construed as motions to compel further responses. Defendants further argue that as such, Plaintiffs’ motions are procedurally improper because Plaintiff has not engaged in an informal discovery conference and has not provided a separate statement. (Stein Decl. ¶ 9.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”

Here, Defendants served objections without responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Although Plaintiff argues that “unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all,” here there are no responses to verify. (Compare Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 634 (party provided a single purported answer to the requests, which was not verified).) While these objections lack a verification statement, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.250 states that “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections” and “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” Accordingly, the documents that consist solely of objections are “responses,” and Plaintiffs’ motions are not motions to compel initial responses, but are motions to compel further responses.

The Court agrees with Defendants that the instant motions are procedurally defective because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order Re Procedures for the Personal Injury Hub.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motions without prejudice. As such, the Court also denies the requests for sanctions.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One as to both defendants.

The hearing set for September 27, 2023 on the motion as to Defendant Jouhaina Simaan is advanced to today’s date and vacated.

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

[1] Plaintiff separately filed a “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two,” with a hearing date of September 20, 2023. The Court is unclear as to what this document refers to, as the Notice of Motion seeks to compel responses to special interrogatories. As such, the Court declines to address this document, although notes that the same issues herein are raised in Defendants’ opposition to this “Memorandum.”

[2] Plaintiff separately filed a “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two,” with a hearing date of September 27, 2023. The Court is unclear as to what this document refers to, as the notice of motion seeks to compel responses to special interrogatories. As such, the Court declines to address this document, although notes that the same issues herein are raised in Defendants’ opposition to this “Memorandum.”

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	September 26, 2023
CASE NUMBER:	21STCV19810
MOTIONS:	(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two[1] (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two[2]
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Karapet Talasyan
OPPOSING PARTY:	(1) Defendant Wadie Simaan (2) Defendant Jouhaina Simaan