Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

July 27, 2022

20STCV32517

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, Request for Admissions, and Monetary Sanctions filed by Plaintiff Lindsay Renee Guardado

These four motions are denied.

Sanctions are denied.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice. 

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle accident which occurred on November 10, 2018. Plaintiff Lindsay Renee Guardado (“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Richard Louis Andrzejak (“Defendant” or “Andrzejak”) attempted to make a left turn onto a 405 Freeway entrance and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants Richard Louis Andrzejak, PV Holding Corporation, and Does 1 through 25. 

On May 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Requests for Production (“RFPs”), and a Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) from Defendant. 

On July 12, 2022, Andrzejak filed his opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed her reply to Andrzejak’s opposition.

Plaintiff propounded FROGs, SROGs, RFPs, and RFAs on Andrzejak on February 15, 2022. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff alleges Defendant served responses to the four discovery demands consisting entirely of objections. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Andrzejak’s objections are waived because they were unverified. Additionally, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Andrzejak’s objections are unwarranted such that further responses should be provided. Plaintiff requests sanctions.

Defendant Andrzejak argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because objections do not require verification. The parties agreed upon an extension of the discovery response deadlines until April 1, 2022. Defendant Andrzejak notes that his Counsel was unable to locate him and was forced to serve objections only after failing to secure a second extension. Defendant Andrzejak argues that he served full and complete responses after an investigator located Defendant Andrzejak. Additionally, Defendant Andrzejak argues that the issues covered in Plaintiff’s motion should have been resolved in an informal discovery conference.

Plaintiff argues she only filed the motions to compel to obtain Defendant’s cooperation in the discovery process and that she is still entitled to sanctions for attorney fees and costs incurred in filing the motions to compel.

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. 

Where there has been no timely response to a Request for Admissions, the demanding party may seek an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. section 233.280 subd. (b)) If responses have been filed but are (1) evasive or incomplete or (2) without merit or too general, the demanding party may file a motion to compel further answers. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290 subd. (a)) If a response is not timely, the responding party waives the right to object to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.280 subd. (a))

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.) 

 

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)  

 

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040, “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” 

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to (1) FROGs, (2)SROGs, (3) RFPs, and (4) RFAs.

Plaintiff propounded her requests on February 15, 2022. Responses were due March 17, 2022. The parties apparently agreed to an extension of response deadlines which moved the due date to April 1, 2022. On April 1, 2022, Andrzejak responded to Plaintiff’s requests with objections. 

Plaintiff argues that Andrzejak never responded to her FROGs, SROGs, and RFPs because the response was unverified. Andrzejak argues that his responses are timely because they are objections, which do not need to be verified. Objections need not be verified in responses to interrogatories. (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.) Because Andrzejak’s response consisted entirely of objections and he submitted them within the April 1, 2022 deadline agreed upon by the parties, his response was timely and did not require verification. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial responses to her FROGs, SROGs and RFAs are denied. 

If Plaintiff wished to challenge the objections, the proper motion would have been a motion to compel further, which requires participation in an IDC.  

 

The Court further notes that these motions would be moot (if they had not been denied) because Defendant has now served substantive responses. 

Plaintiff also argues that Andrzejak never responded to her RFAs because the response was unverified. As discussed above, objections do not require verification. Additionally, a motion to compel initial responses is inappropriate for RFAs. In the event RFAs are not timely filed, the proper motion is a motion to deem request admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. section 233.280 subd. (b)) If responses have been filed but are (1) evasive or incomplete or (2) without merit or too general, the demanding party may file a motion to compel further answers. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290 subd. (a)) Here, Defendant did timely submit responses consisting entirely of objections. Plaintiff should have filed a motion to compel further and hence the motion is denied.

The Court further notes that this motion would be moot (if it had not been denied) because Defendant has now served substantive responses. 

The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions because the motions to compel were denied.