Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV00108 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

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.

Plaintiff alleges that the responses served on September 7, 2022 were labelled as propounded by ABC only due to a clerical error. Plaintiff argues that since Irepan has had the responses since September 2022, it is now too late to move to compel further.

Irepan argues that Eder Daniel Torres, Rosalva Soto Guevara, and Sergio Ochoa did not serve verified responses specifically to the discovery requests propounded by Irepan. Irepan argues that Torres and Guevara were required to respond to ABC and Irepan separately.

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.

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.

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)).) 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).)

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 Plaintiffs’ oppositions, shows that the untimely responses consist of a mix of objections and substantive responses. (Allton Declarations, Exh. B.) The responses submitted with the oppositions did not include verifications.

The parties filed supplemental briefing. Plaintiffs now allege that they did serve verified responses to Irepan’s discovery requests on September 7, 2022. Defendants ABC and Irepan served identical discovery requests on Plaintiffs on June 3, 2022. (Allton Supp. Decl., ¶2.) After Plaintiffs retained new counsel, Plaintiffs’ new counsel requested extensions to respond. (Id., ¶¶5-6.) Ultimately, Plaintiffs served late, verified responses on September 7, 2022. (Id., ¶8.) Guevara and Ochoa’s responses were verified and specifically directed at both Defendants. (Id., ¶¶9-10.) However, Torres’s responses only listed ABC as the propounding party through a clerical error. (Id., ¶11.)

Irepan continues to argue that he received no responses to his discovery requests, arguing that Plaintiffs were required to serve their responses separately. Irepan cites Civ. Proc., section 2030.210, which states “the party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210, subd. (a).) “In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210, subd. (b).) With respect to the requests for production of documents, Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.210 contains substantially similar provisions.

Here, the Court finds that Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.210 and 2031.210 require that the responding party respond to each interrogatory and to each item or category of item, meaning each item in a request must be responded to separately. There is nothing in the code section precluding a party from responding to two defendants in the same document. Because ABC and Irepan served identical discovery requests and are represented by the same attorneys, it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to serve responses in the same document. Plaintiffs’ substantive responses would not have changed if they served the responses separately.

An examination of Plaintiffs responses shows that Guevara’s and Ochoa’s responses were verified and named both ABC and Irepan as the propounding parties in the first paragraph of each response. The responses were clearly responsive to both ABC and Irepan. However, Torres’s responses only listed ABC in the first paragraph of the responses. Thus, Torres’s responses did not comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.210 and 2031.210. Consequently, Torres must serve responses to Irepan’s discovery requests.

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, the Court granted the motions with respect to Torres and denied the motions with respect to Guevara and Ochoa. Irepan was substantially justified in bringing the motions because Torres did not name Irepan as a propounding party on his responses. Plaintiffs were justified in opposing because Irepan represented that Plaintiffs made no response to his discovery requests. The Court notes that this matter should have been resolved without court intervention. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions.