Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01255144, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Irogs
Tentative Ruling:
Defendant filed two Motions to Compel: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 plus $3,260 in sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 plus $1,660 in sanctions.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories, if it finds the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300.)
Unverified responses are tantamount to no response. (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a).) If responses contain both answers (i.e., fact-specific responses) and objections, the portion containing answers must be verified, but there is no need to verify that portion containing the objections. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) However, the attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (c).)
The motion to compel further must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).) The motion must also “identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number” and be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)
Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories must be noticed “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) However, the 45 day deadline to file to a motion to compel applies only to verified responses and does not apply the responses that contain only objections. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136.)
Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1
The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is denied as untimely. Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories must be noticed “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)
Here, it appears that the response to Form Interrogatory, No 17.1 was served on December 7, 2023.[1] 45 days after December 7, 2023 is January 23, 2023. The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 was served and filed on February 28, 2023. Defendant did not establish that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed in writing to extend Defendant’s time to file a Motion to Compel Further.
As such, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is DENIED as untimely.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29.
The deadline to file the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is not subject to the same timeline. Plaintiff provided the initial responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One on December 7, 2023.[2] Defendant established that Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 26 on February 9, 2023.
The deadline Motion to Compel Further Responses to the un-supplemented responses is to be calculated from December 7, 2023, the date Plaintiff provided responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 2, 8, 27, 28, and 29. Again, Defendant did not establish that Plaintiff and Defendant agreed in writing to extend Defendant’s time to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories. Thus, the Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2, 8, 27, 28, and 29 is DENIED as untimely.
However, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 26. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. As such the Motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 5, and 7.
The request for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
---------------------------------------
[1] Defendant does not argue these responses were unverified. The responses contain both substantive responses and objections.
2 Again, Defendant does not argue these responses were unverified. The responses contain both substantive responses and objections