Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV37179, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV37179 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
March 2, 2023
20STCV37179
-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Monetary Sanctions
-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Request for Admission (Set Two) and Request for Monetary Sanctions
DECISION
The Court notes that although these motions were filed as motions to compel further, they are not motions to compel further.
Both motions are granted.
The request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve both verifications within 20 days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in July 2018. Plaintiff Mialyne Hipolito filed her Complaint against The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. on September 29, 2020.
Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions on January 11, 2023.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant propounded requests for written discovery on September 20, 2022. Plaintiff served late, unverified responses on November 21, 2022.
Opposing Arguments
None.
Legal Standard
Compelling Responses to Interrogatories
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.
Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party “may move for an order that the genuineness of any document and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions.” 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).)
Verification
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.)
Objections
A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (CCP § 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.
Sanctions
A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with 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)).)
Discussion
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to SROGs and RFAs.
Defendant’s counsel testifies that he served requests for written discovery on September 20, 2022. (Clancey Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff twice served unverified responses to special interrogatories and requests for admission, once on November 21, 2022 and once on November 25, 2022.. (Id., ¶5-6.) Despite counsel’s efforts to meet and confer, Plaintiff failed to serve verifications with respect to the responses provided on November 25, 2022. (Id., ¶¶7-8.)
Since verifications have not been provided, both motions are granted.
Sanctions are denied as the motions are unopposed.
