Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02011, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02011    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Syomara Perl (“Plaintiff”) filed a single motion to compel initial responses from Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one; and (4) Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one. 

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant the discovery requests.  The parties agreed to extensions.  On January 22, 2024, Defendant “timely served unverified responses containing only baseless objections to Plaintiff.”  (Mot. at pp.1-2.)  Plaintiff argues that despite Defendant requesting additional time until February 16, 2024 to provide additional responses, Plaintiff has not received responses without objection. 

On March 18, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief.  Defendant argues that it timely served and preserved all objections, such that this motion is improper.  Defendant states that Plaintiff will have substantive responses prior to the hearing on the motion, but the objections will be preserved. 

Under California law, unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  This applies to responses, which must be verified under CCP §§ 2030.250, 2031.250 and 2033.240.  However, there is no requirement to verify objections to discovery, which are signed by the attorney under CCP §§ 2030.250, 2031.250, and 2033.240.  Here, to the extent that objections were received by Plaintiff, such mode of response need not be verified by Defendant.  As objections (in the form of responses) were served by Defendant, the motion to compel initial responses is moot and Plaintiff should file motions to compel further responses detailing why Plaintiff believes Defendant’s objections lack merit.  Based on Defendant’s representations, Defendant will provide substantive responses with objections before the hearing.  A better way to handle this situation would be to negotiate an extension rather than attempt to delay simply by failing to provide the substantive responses until a strategically frustrating time. While Defendant’s conduct seems to frustrate, the remedy sought is not appropriate at this time.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA are denied.  Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are denied.