Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Baratta v. Knutte, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present are nine motions to compel, all filed on 4/17/23, as follows:

1. Motion 1 (ROA 161): Plaintiff James Baratta (“James”) moves to compel defendant Putu Blanco (“Putu”), to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Set One;

2. Motion 2 (ROA 157): James moves to compel defendant Paul Blanco (“Paul”) to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ SROGs, Set One;

3. Motion 3 (ROA 145): Plaintiff Laura Baratta (“Laura”) moves to compel Putu to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Set One;

4. Motion 4 (ROA 129): James moves to compel Putu to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ FROGs, Set One;

5. Motion 5 (ROA 129): James moves to compel Putu to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’s FROGs, Set Two;

6. Motion 6 (ROA 121): James moves to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”), Set One, as served upon Paul;

7. Motion 7 (ROA 117): James moves to deem admitted the RFAs, Set One, as served upon Putu;

8. Motion 8 (ROA 141): James moves to compel Putu to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set One; and

9. Motion 9 (ROA 137): James moves to compel Paul to provide verified responses, without objections, to James’ RFPs, Set One.

For Motions 3, 5, 6 and 7, the motions appear to be generally well-taken, but for an apparent service defect. The Blanco defendants have been self-represented since 1/30/23. (ROAs 74 and 75.) Yet the discovery at issue, and these motions, were all evidently served on them only by e-mail. A self- represented party may consent to receive electronic service. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(c)(2) and CRC 2.251(c)(3)(B).) But Plaintiffs here have not shown that such consent was obtained from the Blancos. Therefore, the Motions are DENIED, without prejudice, due to the failure to show that valid service of either the discovery at issue or these motions was effectuated on them.

However, for Motions 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9, the Motions are GRANTED. For these motions, each reflects that the discovery at issue was duly served, and despite extensions, the Blanco defendants never answered. As no responses were timely provided to the Form Interrogatories (on Motion 4 to Putu), Special Interrogatories (on Motions 1 and 2, to Putu and Paul), or Requests for Production (on Motions 8 and 9 to Putu and Paul) , all objections thereto have been waived, and responses may be compelled. (C.C.P. §2030.290(a),(b) & §2031.300(a),(b).) The Court therefore orders that defendants Paul and Putu Blanco, respectively, provide verified responses, without objections, to the SROGs Set One from James, on Motions 1 and 2, and to the RFPs, Set One, from James, on Motions 8 and 9, and that defendant Putu Blanco provide verified responses, without objections, to the FROGs, Set One, from James, on Motion 4. All such responses are to be provided to counsel for Plaintiff, by email and by mail, within 15 days after service of notice of these rulings.

Sanctions are awarded on Motions 1, 4, and 8, against defendant Putu Blanco, in the amount of $150 per Motion, and on Motions 2 and 9, in the amount of $420 per Motion against defendant Paul Blanco. Such sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiffs, through their counsel of record, within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice.