Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV17079, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17079    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 74

Almost Nothing, Inc. v. Omid Reyhanian, et al.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Pacific Eurotex Corp. and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over a lease agreement.

            On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Pacific Eurotex Corp. (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleges breach of lease, conspiracy, negligence, declaratory relief, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with the form interrogatories at issue.

            Defendant has yet to provide verified responses to the form interrogatories.

            On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel discovery responses to the form interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

DISCUSSION 

            In the opposition, Defendant’s counsel claims he did not serve timely responses to the form interrogatories because he was under the impression the parties had agreed to a stay on discovery during settlement discussions. (Zadeh Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.) Consistent with that belief, Defendant’s counsel held back on filing a demurrer; given the potential consequences of a defendant’s failing to file a demurrer, one would not ordinarily expect a defendant to postpone filing a demurrer unless the defendant in good faith believed a stay existed. (Zadeh Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends no such stay was ever in place. (Bitton Decl., ¶ 12; Ex. 8.) Nevertheless, Defendant’s counsel has agreed to provide responses to the form interrogatories with relevant objections. Accordingly, the court will permit Defendant to respond to the form interrogatories and continue this hearing to a later date in case it remains necessary.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court continues this hearing.