Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV44242, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44242    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman moves to compel defendant Liza Perel to serve further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, and 17.1.  A party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”  (CCP § 2030.300(a).) 

Defendant made meritless objections to interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 12.1, 12.3, and 15.1.  A party who “fails to serve a timely response” to interrogates “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.”  (CCP § 2030.290(a).)  Plaintiff served form interrogatories – general, set one, on February 12, 2024.  (House Decl., ¶ 2., Ex. 1.)  Defendant did not respond until April 30.  (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.)  Defendant did not serve a timely response and therefore waived any objections.  Her late response includes numerous objections.  They are meritless.  Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses without objections.

Defendant’s objections to form interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 15.1 are overruled.

Defendant also gave an incomplete response to 17.1.  She responded only, “Not yet completed.”     

Sanctions

            Plaintiff moves for $3,042.26 in sanctions against defendant.  A court must impose monetary sanctions against any party or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make sanctions unjust.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(d) [interrogatories]; 2031.310(h) [requests for production].)  “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” is also a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(e).) 

Defendant made meritless objections to discovery without substantial justification.  Defendant argues sanctions would be “unfair” because she was injured in an accident on May 16, 2024.  (Perel Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 2.)  Defendant waived her objections to these interrogatories by failing to timely respond.  She still asserted objections in her response on April 30, two weeks before the accident.  Plaintiff served the interrogatories in February.  Defendant had ample time before her accident to answer them.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances. 

Disposition

Plaintiff Shane Perel-Wertman’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Liza Perel is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general, Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, and 17.1, within 30 days.  Defendant Liza Perel is ordered to pay plaintiff $3,042.26 in sanctions within 30 days.