Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV21243, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21243    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from alleged habitability issues. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Bedingfield filed the complaint against Defendant Jeremy Braud, alleging (1) negligence, (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3) constructive eviction, and (4) failure to refund deposit.

            The present motion concerns Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, which Defendant contends are improper because they were electronically served, and the purported verification is improper.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

DISCUSSION

I. Electronic Service

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(1) provides: “A party represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.” “‘Electronic service’ means service of a document, on a party or other person, by either electronic transmission or electronic notification.” (Id., subd. (a)(1)(A).) Serving discovery responses constitutes “service of a document.” Nothing in the text restricts Section 1010.6 to electronic filing, as Defendant contends. (See Reply 6:6-10.) Thus, Plaintiff may properly serve his responses through email.

II. Verification

            However, the verification of Plaintiff’s responses is improper because Plaintiff did not hand sign the verification. The purported signature on the verification is merely Plaintiff’s name typed onto the document. (Alarcon Decl., Ex. D.) There is no way to verify that Plaintiff actually signed the document. Plaintiff argues that the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1633.1 et seq.) gives electronic signatures the same legal effect as handwritten signatures. (Opp. 3:19-24.) However, the UETA “applies only to a transaction between parties each of which has agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means.” (Civ. Code, § 1633.5(b).) The UETA defines “transaction” as “an action or set of actions occurring between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business, commercial, or governmental affairs.” (Id., § 1633.2(o).) Thus, the UETA does not cover verifications of discovery responses. In any case, Plaintiff has offered no evidence to verify his electronic signature, even under the UETA. (See id., § 1633.9.)

            Additionally, the verification is improper because it states: “The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.” (Alarcon Decl., Ex. D, emphasis added.) A verification based on information and belief is acceptable for pleadings but not interrogatory answers, because interrogatory answers must be based on the responding party’s personal knowledge, or otherwise state the inability to provide a response. (Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022), ¶ 8:1104.)

III. Timeliness of Motion

            The motion is timely because it concerns Plaintiff’s failure to provide any response at all in the first instance. (See Appleton, supra, 06 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [an unverified response is tantamount to no response at all].) The 45-day deadline for a motion to compel further responses is not applicable here. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses in the first instance.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Within 10 days, Plaintiff is to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two with a proper verification signed by hand and based on personal knowledge only. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.