Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV12193, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV12193 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: 28
Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and Deem RFAs Admitted
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Sasoon Abramian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Vincenti Family Trust, John C. Vincenti, and Palma J. Vincenti (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges general negligence and premises liability in the complaint arising from an accident on April 9, 2018.
On July 6, 2022, Defendant, Vincenti Family Trust, filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One and Two), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). Defendant also moved to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One).
Trial is set for December 14, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide complete and verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production (Set One), without objections, within 15 days of hearing. Defendant also asks the court to deem admitted the truth of the matters asserted in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Defendant also asks that the Court impose $777.50 for the Requests for Admission motion, and $572.50 for each of the remaining motions in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP), § 2030.290, subd. (b).) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the response is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300.)
Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) On receipt of a response to a demand, the party may move for an order compelling further response if the party deems that the demand is incomplete, inadequate, evasive, or an objection is without merit. (CCP § 2031.310.)
If a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests, and the requesting party may move for an order deeming the requests admitted. (CCP § 2033.280.) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting the admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that the answer is evasive or incomplete, or an objection to a request is without merit or too general. (CCP §2033.290.)
Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that 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., § 2023.010.)
Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP, §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)
DISCUSSION
On January 10, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). (All Three Nese Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Responses were due 35 days later on February 14, 2022. Defendant’s counsel granted plaintiff an extension for these responses until May 5, 2022. (Nese Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)
Defendant also served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) on March 31, 2022. (Nese Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Responses were due 35 days later on May 5, 2022.
On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff sent responses to each of these discovery requests (Nese Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 3.); however, Defendant counsel states that he did not receive these responses until May 29, 2022. (Nese Decl. ¶ 5.) Before receiving these responses, Defendant sent another meet and confer letter providing Plaintiff until June 3, 2022 to respond. (Nese Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 4.)
Defendant states that all responses were unverified “objection only responses.” (Nese Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 3.) Defendant asserts that serving unverified responses consisting of only objections is tantamount to receiving no responses at all, and thus brings a motion to compel, rather than a motion to compel further. However, an objection constitutes a response to each of these discovery requests. (See CCP §§ 2030.210(a); 2031.210(a); 2033.210(b).). Additionally, a responding party is required to verify the response unless the response contains only objections. (See CCP § 2030.250(a); 2031.250(a); 2033.240(a).) Because Plaintiff filed responses that contained only objections to all discovery requests, these responses did not need to be verified and they still constituted proper responses. Thus, Defendant should have brought a motion to compel further responses.
When bringing a motion to compel further, the moving party must submit a declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b)(1); 2031.310(b)(2); 2033.290(b)(1); See 2016.040.) Although Defendant submits two letters attempting to meet and confer, these letters were addressing Plaintiff’s initial failure to respond, not Plaintiff’s alleged insufficient responses with objections. Thus, Defendant has not met this mandatory requirement. For this reason, the Court denies Defendant’s Motions to allow the parties to meet and confer with regard to the insufficiencies of Plaintiff’s responses.
CONCLUSION
The motions are DENIED.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.