Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV39808, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV39808 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
February 24, 2023
20STCV39808
-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Piedad Salazar’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Abigail Hankins
-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Piedad Salazar’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Abigail Hankins
-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Piedad Salazar’s Responses to Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Abigail Hankins
DECISION
The three motions are granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 15 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 vehicle collision which took place in November 2018. Plaintiffs Piedad Salazar, Giselle Parada, Jose Jurado, Santiago Jurado, and Sophia Jurado filed their Complaint against Defendants Timothy and Abigail Hankins on October 16, 2020.
Defendant Abigail Hankins (“Abigail”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff Piedad Salazar’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production (“RPDs”) on October 19, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Abigail propounded discovery requests on Piedad Salazar on May 20, 2022. Abigail has not received responses to date.
Opposing Arguments
None filed.
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.
Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents
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.
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.)
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)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)
Discussion
Defendant Abigail Hankins moves to compel Plaintiff Piedad Salazar’s responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs.
Defendant’s counsel testifies that she propounded written discovery on Piedad Salazar on May 20, 2022. (Moskovian Decl., ¶2.) On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶3.) Despite counsel’s meet and confer efforts, Piedad Salazar never sent verifications. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. Because there has been no response to Hankin’s discovery requests, the motions are granted.
Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories and the request for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)). Here, sanctions are denied because these motions are unopposed.
