Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 20STCV36975, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ANTONIO CASTILLO’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND TO DEEM GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS ADMITTED FILED BY PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Antonio Castillo’s responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One: (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two; (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (4) Special Interrogatories, Set Two; and (5) Supplemental Interrogatories is granted as to Defendant Antonio Castillo.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Antonio Castillo’s response to (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Request for Production of Documents, Set Two; and (3) Supplemental Requests for Production is granted as to Defendant Antonio Castillo.

Sanctions in the amount of $2,040 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant Antonio Castillo and his counsel of record. Sanctions are payable within 15 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for violation of Civ. Code, section 1942.4, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, private nuisance, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, section 17200, negligence, and premises liability. Plaintiffs allege they were tenants living on a property owned by Defendants. The unit contained defects including faulty wiring, inadequate or missing smoke detectors, cockroach or rodent infestation, inadequate weatherproofing, broken appliances, deteriorating walls and ceilings, unsanitary and worn flooring, and unsanitary and unsafe common areas. Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints about the defects and orders from government entities. As a result of the faulty wiring and broken smoke detectors, the unit caught on fire in August 2019, causing personal injuries and property damage. Plaintiffs thereafter could not return to the unit. Defendants failed to provide alternative housing.

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Jessica Esquer, Miguel Hernandez, Jessica Kimberly Benitez, Jorge Fernando Sanchez, Rigo Angel Hernandez, Amanda Jackie Hernandez, Diego Miguel Hernandez, and Ricardo Hernandez filed their Complaint against Defendants Omar and Antonio Castillo.

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 requests for admissions, a “requesting party may move for 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 a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

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.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that she propounded Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Requests for Production (“RPDs”), and Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) and Requests to Admit the Genuineness of Documents on March 15, 2021 and/or May 19, 2022. (Rodas Decl., ¶2.) Defendant failed to respond by June 20, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) On September 27, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Defendants meet and confer correspondence. (Id., ¶6.) Defendants’ counsel responded that one defendant. Antonio Castillo, was infirm, suffering from dementia, and unable to respond to discovery.” (Id., ¶6.) After Plaintiffs granted many extensions, Defendant Antonio Castillo failed to respond to discovery or supply evidence of a guardianship or conservatorship. (Id., ¶6.)

Because Defendant Antonio Castillo has not provided any response to Plaintiffs’ requests for written discovery, the motions to compel Defendants’ responses are granted. The same analysis applies to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiffs’ motion are admitted.

Since these motions are unopposed and largely duplicative, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,040 for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $600 per hour and filing fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, as well as CRC 3.1348.