Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 29, 2022

21STCV03464

-Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiffs Cinthya and Magali Alvarez Martinez

-Motion to Deem Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission (Set One) to be Admitted by Defendant and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiffs Cinthya and Magali Alvarez Martinez

Both motions are granted.

The RFAs are deemed admitted.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the SROGs within 25 days after the date of this order.

The request for sanctions is denied with respect to the SROGs but granted with respect to the RFAs.

Sanctions in the amount of $960 are imposed jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. Sanctions are due within 25 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.

This is an action for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability arising from a vehicle collision which took place in March 2019. Plaintiffs Cynthia and Magali Alvarez Martinez filed their Complaint against Defendant April Samantha Aguirre on January 28, 2021.

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel discovery.

Moving Arguments

Plaintiffs propounded written discovery on Defendant on May 18, 2022 with responses due on June 21, 2022. On July 8, 2022, Defendant served late, unverified responses to SROGs with objections and unverified responses to RFAs without objections.

Opposing Arguments

None.

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. § 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. (CCP § 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. (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.

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).)

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 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).) 

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant’s responses to SROGs and to deem RFAs admitted.

Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that she propounded discovery on Defendant on May 18, 2022, with responses due on June 21, 2022. (Ter-Haroutunian Decl., ¶5.) On July 8, 2022, Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶7.) On August 5, 2022, Plaintiffs sent Defendants’ counsel a good faith meet and confer letter regarding the deficient responses. (Id., ¶9.) On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to contact Defendant’s counsel again twice to discuss the matter. (Id., ¶11.) Defendant did not respond. (Id., ¶¶11-12.) 

Defendant’s responses to SROGs were a mix of unverified responses and objections. (Motion, Exh. B.) Although objections need not be verified, Defendant waived objections by responding late. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) Defendant’s objections in her late response must be disregarded. The remaining responses were unverified, which are tantamount to no response at all. Therefore, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ requests SROGs. Because there has been no response, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant’s responses to SROGs is granted.

A similar analysis applies to Plaintiffs’ request to deem requests for admissions admitted. Defendant served unverified responses to the RFAs without objections. Because the responses are unverified, this is tantamount to making no response at all. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiffs’ motions are admitted.  

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. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) 2022 WL 12010415.) 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)). Sanctions with respect to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted are mandatory 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).) 

Here, the requests for sanctions as to the interrogatories are denied because this motion were not opposed. Sanctions are granted as to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted because Defendant failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiffs’ RFAs. Because the motion was simple and unopposed, the Court awards $960 total for 3 hours of attorney time at a rate of $300 per hour and filing fees.