Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 20STCV05566, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MATTHEW SHEPHERD’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Matthew Shepherd’s responses to Requests for Production, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Superior Loan Servicing’s responses to Requests for Production, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.

Defendants must serve verified responses without objections within 10 days after the date of this order. Defendants must also produce any responsive documents at the same time.

The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $1,815 jointly and severally against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of record. Sanctions are payable within 10 days after the date of this order.

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel Defendant Superior Loan Servicing’s and Defendant Matthew Shepherd’s responses to requests for written discovery and to deem requests for admissions admitted.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (SROGs) and Requests for Productions (RPDs) from Defendants Superior Loan Servicing (SLS) and Matthew Shepherd.

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. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

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 section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., section 030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) However, objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 provides that a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if no opposition was filed.

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies in substantially similar declarations that she propounded SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on SLS and Shepherd on September 15, 2023. (Chavez Decl., ¶3.) Shepherd and SLS never served responses or sought an extension despite Plaintiff’s attempts to meet. (Id., ¶4.) Although counsel for Shepherd and SLS emailed Plaintiff’s counsel stating he never received the requests and sought an extension, no responses had been served as of November 15, 2023. (Motions, Exhs. B-C.)

Because Defendants have not provided any response to Plaintiffs’ SROGs and RPDs, the motions to compel responses from SLS and Shepherd are granted.

The Court finds that SLS and Shepherd’s failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s SROGs and RPDs constitutes discovery abuse under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,575 for 4.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour and filing fees totaling $240 for four motions.