Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV00372, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Defendant EGL Properties, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Malena Gurcinas Nicolini to provide responses to its Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) is denied without prejudice.

Defendant EGL Properties, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Malena Gurcinas Nicolini to provide responses to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied without prejudice.

Defendant EGL Properties, Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Malena Gurcinas Nicolini to provide responses to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied without prejudice.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the reduced total of $476.25, payable within 20 days.

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to its Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) (“Employment FROG”), Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) (Set One). (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.) However, Defendant includes its motion to compel responses to Employment FROG, SROG, and RFP with its motion to compel General FROG; the Court cannot rule on these motions, as they must be individually filed with the Court with a $60 filing fee for each motion. The Court will consider Defendant’s motions to compel Employment FROG, SROG, and RFPs, but the order as to these will only be effective upon Defendant’s payment of an additional 3 filing fees (3 X $60).

On November 17, 2022, Defendant served written discovery upon Plaintiff, which included the instant General FROG. (Decl. of Kim ¶5, Exh. A.) On December 16, 2022, Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension to January 9, 2023, to serve Plaintiff’s responses. (Decl. of Kim ¶6, Exh. B.) On January 8, 2023, Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for another extension until January 13, 2023, to serve Plaintiff’s responses. (Decl. of Kim ¶7, Exh. C.) On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff requested another extension until January 16, 2023, which Defendant granted. (Decl. of Kim ¶8, Exh. C.) On January 16, 2023, Plaintiff served responses on Defendant with the same or similar boilerplate objections. (Decl. of Kim ¶9, Exh. D.)

On February 27, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion. On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition. On July 26, 2023, Defendant filed its reply.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories. (C.C.P. §§2030.290, 2030.310; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The same is true for requests for production. (C.C.P. § 2031.300.) Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Relief for untimely motions may be available, however, under C.C.P. §473(b) based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (C.C.P. §473(b).)

Here, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s discovery with verified responses. Defendant’s responses are not verified and are tantamount to no response at all. (See Appleton, 206 Cal.App.3d at pg. 636.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to verified responses to the subject discovery is granted.

If the party enforcing a motion to compel answers to interrogatories properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to compel unless it finds that party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.” (C.C.P. §§2030.290(c); 2031.310(h).)

C.C.P §2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose a monetary sanction against any party or attorney, or both, who has engaged in misuse of the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include, among other things, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery. (C.C.P. §2023.010.) Here, as stated above, Plaintiff’s responses were unverified and consisted only of boilerplate objections.

Defendant’s counsel Jane Kim declares her hourly rate is $270.00 and her colleague, Ellen Cohen’s, hourly rate is $305. (Decl. of Kim ¶¶15-16.) Defendant’s counsel, Jane Kim, declares she spent 5.7 hours preparing the consolidated motions, and Ellen Cohen spent 1.2 hours preparing the motion. (Decl. of Kim ¶¶15-16.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced to a total of $6,142.50, payable within 20 days. This order is effective upon Defendants payment of the additional filing fees referenced above.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court