Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV21923, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21923    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

This is a Proposition 65 warning action relating to products which expose consumers to cadmium.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and requests sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Berj Parseghian’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one and request for sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Discussion

Motion To Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and requests sanctions.

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(b)

(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.

(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

     (Code Civ. Proc § 2030.300 [bold emphasis added].)

            Here, it appears that Defendant did not serve verified responses. (Motion, Exh. B.) Because verifications were not served at the time this motion was filed (Weidmann Decl., ¶ 10), the 45-day time limit did not begin to run, as that time limit only begins to run upon service of a verified responses or supplemental verified response.  (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(c).)  To harmonize the fact that objections need not be verified (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4^th 651, 657 – 58) with § 2030.300(c), the timely service of unverified responses containing objections preserves the objections only, but does not trigger the 45-day limit in which to bring a motion to compel further responses.  As such, this motion is timely, but the objections served in the timely responses have not been waived. 

            However, the Declaration of Tro Krikorian does not reflect any meet and confer effort as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(b)(1).

            Nor is the motion accompanied by a separate statement, nor a Court-permitted concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(b)(2).)

            As such, Plaintiff has not met the requirements of Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300.

            The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one and request for sanctions is DENIED.