Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV00628 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Ron Uzan’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendants Fine Windows and Doors Replacement, Inc. and Zvika Zvia Tuizer

The parties should appear at the hearing.

An OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve Defendant Tamar E. Norikian Within Two Years and Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Enter Default as to Defendants Markar M. Sarkissian; Parvin Galdijebenoun; Morris Benoun; and Ron Uzan ; will be set.

Moving party is to provide notice within one day after the date of this order and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2019. Plaintiffs Jason Craig Dessaint and Yadira Perez filed their Complaint against Defendants Fine Windows, Inc., Zvika Zvi Quizer, Ron Uzan, Tamar E. Norikian, Markark M. Sarkissian, Parvin Galdjebrnoun, and Morris Benoun on January 7, 2021.

Defendants Fine Windows and Doors Replacement, Inc. and Zvika Zvia Tuizer (“Moving Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff Ron Uzan’s responses to their Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) on December 5, 2022.

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.)

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.)

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.

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)).)

Moving Defendants’ counsel testifies that she propounded FROGs on Uzan on February 2, 2022. (Ghaemmaghami Decl., ¶2.) Responses were due March 8, 2022 and Uzan failed to serve responses. (Id., ¶3.) Counsel called Uzan’s counsel inquiring after the late responses and requested responses without objections by April 8, 2022. (Id., ¶4.) Uzan then failed to serve responses. (Id., ¶5.)

Because Uzan has not responded to Moving Defendants’ FROGs, Defendant’s motion to compel Uzan’s responses to their FROGs is 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.) Sanctions for with respect to interrogatories 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).). Here, Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions are denied because this motion was not opposed.