Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 22STCV02018, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02018 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
March 28, 2023
22STCV02018
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Robert Apodaca’s Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant S.C. Elliot Corp.
DECISION
The motion is granted.
The request for sanctions is 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 three court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for negligence and premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in January 2020. Plaintiff Hernan Orellana filed his Complaint against Defendant S.C. Elliot Corp. dba Wok Express on January 18, 2022.
Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) on November 21, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant propounded FROGs on Plaintiff on May 19, 2021. To date, Plaintiff has not responded.
Opposing Arguments
None.
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.)
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.)
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)).)
Discussion
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs.
Defendant’s counsel testifies that he propounded Form Interrogatories on May 9, 2021. (Baldwin Decl., ¶3.) In July 2022, Defendant notified Plaintiff’s counsel that responses to form interrogatories were late. (Id., ¶5.) To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses. (Id., ¶6.)
Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s FROGs, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’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, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because this motion was not opposed.
