Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV00108 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 22STCV00108, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00108 Hearing Date: January 30, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 30, 2023

22STCV00108

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sergio Ochoa’s Responses to Defendant Leonardo Castillo Irepan’s Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sergio Ochoa’s Responses to Defendant Leonardo Castillo Irepan’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rosalva Soto Guevara’s Responses to Defendant Leonardo Castillo Irepan’s Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rosalva Soto Guevara’s Responses to Defendant Leonardo Castillo Irepan’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff Eder Daniel Torres’s Responses to Defendant Leonardo Castillo Irepan’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

DECISION

All five motions are granted.

Verified responses without objections shall be served within 30 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $773.20 are awarded jointly and severally against Plaintiff Ochoa and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Sanctions in the amount of $773.20 are awarded jointly and severally against Plaintiff Guevara and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Sanctions in the amount of $386.60 are awarded jointly and severally against Plaintiff Torres and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

Sanctions are due within 30 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 from a vehicle collision that took place on January 3, 2022. Plaintiffs Sergio Ochoa, Rosalva Soto Guevara, and Eder Daniel Torres filed their Complaint against Defendants ABC Installation Corp. and Leonardo Castillo Irepan on January 3, 2022.

Defendant Leonardo Irepan filed the instant motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) and Requests for Production (“RPDs”) from Plaintiffs on January 4, 2023.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Irepan argues that he served requests for written discovery on June 3, 2022 and Plaintiffs served untimely responses on September 7, 2022. Irepan also seeks sanctions.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiffs argue the motions are defective because Plaintiffs did file responses and Irepan should have moved to compel further. Plaintiffs also seek sanctions.

Reply Arguments

Irepan argues that Plaintiffs’ oppositions are untimely. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ responses to FROGs and RPDs are not verified.

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

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.) However, substantive responses to discovery must be verified and failure to do so is tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632.)

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)).) 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

Irepan moves to compel responses to FROGs and RPDs from Plaintiffs Sergio Ochoa and Rosalva Soto. Irepan also moves to compel responses to FROGs from Plaintiff Eder Daniel. There is one additional motion to compel Daniel’s responses to RPDs set to be heard on January 31, 2023.

Irepan’s counsel testifies that on June 3, 2022, he propounded requests for written discovery from Plaintiffs. (Trujillo Decl., ¶5.) Irepan’s counsel granted several extensions past the July 7, 2022, with the most recent extension setting a deadline for August 18, 2022. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiffs served untimely responses on September 7, 2022. (Id., ¶11.) Plaintiffs’ responses, attached to Plantiffs’ oppositions, shows that the untimely responses consist of a mix of objections and substantive responses and do not include verifications. (Allton Declarations, Exh. B.)

Plaintiffs’ responses are unverified and tantamount to no response at all. Although objections do not require verifications, Plaintiffs waived all objections to Irepan’s discovery requests by serving untimely responses and the objections must be disregarded. Moreover, there are also substantive responses which must be verified. Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to serve responses to Irepan’s discovery requests. Because Plaintiffs have not responded to Irepan’s discovery requests, Irepan’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses are granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court shall impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production 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)).) Here, Plaintiffs opposed these motions and argued that these motions were moot because Plaintiffs’ served responses, though untimely. However, Plaintiffs’ responses were unverified and tantamount to no response at all. The Court finds that Plaintiffs did not oppose these motions with substantial justification. Irepan’s request for sanctions is granted.

Irepan’s request sanctions of $326.60 for each motion, for a total of $1,633 for five motions. Irepan’s counsel spent a total of 6 hours drafting all six motions, spent three hours preparing the reply, and will spend one hour attending the motion hearing for a total of 10 hours of attorney time at a rate of $160 per hour. (Trujillo Decl., ¶12.) Irepan also requests $300 for filing fees for the five motions. (Id.) These requests are reasonable. The Court awards Irepan $1,633 for these five motions.