Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV21437 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange (unopposed)

The motion is granted.

Defendant Steven Akopyan is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 20 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 uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange filed its Petition against Respondents Shushan Khalachyan and Steven Akopyan on July 1, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Respondent Akopyan’s responses to Form Interrogatories on August 11, 2022.

Plaintiff originally propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Number One on Akopyan on April 14, 2022. To date, Akopyan has served no responses.

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.

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to FROGs from Respondent Akopyan.

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Akopyan’s responses to FROGs. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration counsel. Plaintiff propounded FROGs on Akopyan on April 14, 2022 with responses due on May 19, 2022. (Petrosyan Decl., ¶¶4-5.) After receiving no responses, Plaintiff’s counsel called Akopyan’s counsel to discuss the overdue responses. (Id., ¶6.) Akopyan’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he was still preparing the responses and requested an extension to June 2, 2022. (Id.) On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel granted the extension and confirmed the new due date over email. (Id., ¶7.) Akopyan’s counsel thereafter requested another extension to June 9, 2022, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted. (Id., ¶8.) On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Akopyan’s counsel to discuss the overdue responses again and granted another extension. (Id., ¶9.) Plaintiff’s counsel then successively granted two more extensions. (Id., ¶¶10-11.) Akopyan’s counsel sent a letter stating he would be sending discovery responses on July 18, 2022. (Id., ¶12.) To date, Akopyan has not responded to Plaintiff’s FROGs. (Id., ¶13.)

Because Akopyan has served no response to Plaintiff’s FROGs, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.