Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV17185, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17185    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Arianna Sierra’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Interrogatories

Plaintiff Arianna Sierra moves to compel defendant Pink Sponge, a California Corporation, to serve further responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories – general, and form interrogatories – employment. 

Verifications

Though defendant served some supplemental responses to plaintiff’s special and form interrogatories, defendant did not verify them.  (Shahmoradian Decl., ¶ 13; Shahmoradian Reply Decl., ¶ 4.)  “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  The court therefore will order defendant to serve verifications to its further responses.

Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Nos. 201.6 and 216.1

Plaintiff failed to make an adequate effort to informally resolve the dispute over defendant’s answers to these interrogatories.  In reply to the opposition’s argument on this subject, plaintiff argues she “granted Defendant more than 5 extensions to provide code-compliant verified responses.”  Even so, plaintiff did not try to resolve the specific dispute about the content of defendant’s ultimate responses to form interrogatories – employment Nos. 201.6 and 216.1. 

Defendant served a supplemental response to No. 201.6 on December 23, 2022.  (Shahmoradian Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. K.)  Plaintiff shows no effort to meet and confer about it before filing this motion.  Though defendant’s supplemental responses did not include a further response to No. 216.1, plaintiff still should have attempted to meet and confer about it.  As plaintiff’s own meet and confer correspondence acknowledges, No. 216.1 is identical to form interrogatory – general No. 15.1.  (Shahmoradian Decl., Ex. E, p. 3.)  Defendant’s supplemental responses served on December 23, 2022, included a further response to No. 15.1.  (Id., Ex. K.)    

The motion is moot as to the substance of these responses.  After plaintiff filed this motion, defendant belatedly served further supplemental responses.  (Wright Decl., ¶ 5.) 

Privilege Log

In this motion, plaintiff also seeks an order requiring defendant to provide a privilege log for its responses to requests for production.  This portion of the motion is procedurally defective.  The motion is labeled a motion to compel “further responses to interrogatories.”  The notice of motion does not mention requests for production.  Nor does the separate statement.  Plaintiff only briefly notes that she seeks an order for a privilege log in the memorandum of points and authorities (including in a footnote) and in the proposed order.  Plaintiff did not give defendant adequate notice she seeks this order. 

Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for $3,490 in monetary sanctions against defendant and its counsel.  Plaintiff’s motion was only partially successful.  The court finds that defendant opposed the motion with substantial justification and sanctions would not be just under the circumstances.

Disposition

            Plaintiff Arianna Sierra’s motion to compel defendant’s further responses to interrogatories is granted in part as to verifications of supplemental and further supplemental responses.  Defendant Pink Sponge, a California Corporation, is hereby ordered to serve verifications of its supplemental and further supplemental responses to plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories – general, set one, and form interrogatories – employment, set one, within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Arianna Sierra’s motion is denied as to further responses to form interrogatories – employment, Nos. 206.1 and 216.1, as to a privilege log, and as to monetary sanctions.