Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 22STCV39133, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT DOE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT DOE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

This decision is based on the Court’s understanding that a supplemental verified response was provided to SROG #10 on March 6, 2024.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,381.70 are imposed on Defendant Doe School District. Sanctions are payable within 30 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for childhood sexual assault, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring, negligent failure to warn, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual harassment. Plaintiff alleges that while he was a student attending Doe High School in the 1990s, he suffered sexual abuse committed by a school resource officer.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff LL John Doe MB filed his Complaint against Defendants Doe School District, Doe County, Doe Probation Department, Doe City, and Doe Law Enforcement.

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Doe School District’s (District’s) responses to Special Interrogatories (SROGs), and Requests for Production (RPDs). District filed an opposition on February 29, 2024. Plaintiff replied on March 6, 2024.

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.)

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., section 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., section 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.

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., section 030.290(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.)

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.)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 provides that a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if no opposition was filed.

Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that she propounded written discovery requests on District on September 19, 2023. (Liakos Decl., ¶2.) The responses were due on October 19, 2023. (Id., ¶3.) After Plaintiff granted four extensions, District failed to serve a response by the time this motion was filed. (Id., ¶¶4-9.)

In opposition, District’s counsel testifies that due to a sudden increase in cases, a planned vacation, and staffing shortages, his office was unable to complete and serve responses to discovery. (Wheeler Decl., ¶¶3-7.) District served responses on February 20, 2024. (Id., ¶7.)

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against District. Because District’s responses were not timely served, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. However, because the two motions are simple, identical and will be heard on the same date, the Court awards a reduced amount of $1,381.70 for 2.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $500 per hour and filing fees.