Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 23STCV28985, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND TO DEEM GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS ADMITTED FILED BY PLAINTIFF ANAIT TATARYAN

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, Set One, special interrogatories, Set One, requests for production, Set One and to deem requests for admission, Set One admitted are GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production within 30 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,711.65 are awarded jointly and severally against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel of Record. Sanctions are due within 30 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff alleges that she leased a 2020 Mercedes-Benz S560 vehicle in April 2021. The lease came with an express written warranty. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects, including that the vehicle would not start and defects with the battery, coolant, engine, and others. After Defendant could not repair the vehicle, Defendant failed to repurchase or replace the vehicle.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories (FROGs), Special Interrogatories (SROGs), and Requests for Production (RPDs). Plaintiff also moves to deem Requests for Admissions (RFAs) admitted. The motions are unopposed.

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.

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280(c).)

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.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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., sections 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he propounded Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Requests for Production (“RPDs”), and Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) on December 22, 2023. (Aslanian Decl., ¶3.) Defendant did not request an extension. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff sent meet and confer correspondence to Defendant’s counsel and received no response. (Id., ¶¶6-8.) To date, Defendant has not served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶5.)

Because Defendant has not provided any response to Plaintiff’s requests for written discovery, the motions to compel Defendant’s responses are granted. The same analysis applies to the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiffs’ motion are admitted.

The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,711.65 for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $550 per hour and filing fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2033.280(c), as well as CRC 3.1348.