Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03719, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03719     Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Rachael Ann Vandalen

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant is to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Form Interrogatories within twenty (20) days’ notice of this order.  In addition, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $510.00, to be paid by Defendant’s counsel, within twenty (20) days’ notice of this order.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 YES

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NO[1]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     YES

OPPOSITION:          Filed on August 25, 2022.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 1, 2022.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On May 13, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Rachael Ann Vandalen.  On September 2, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer.

On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories (“Motion”) and a request for sanctions in the amount of $660.00.

On August 25, 2022, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Motion.  No reply was filed.

On August 30, 2022, parties filed a signed Stipulation to Continue Trial.

II.              Legal Standard and Discussion

A.    Form Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiff states that Defendant was served with Form Interrogatories, Set One, by email on September 7, 2021.  (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 1.)  Responses were due on October 12, 2021.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a reminder to Defendant’s counsel requesting that Defendant respond to the discovery requests within ten (10) days of the date of the letter.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. 2.)  However, as of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not received any responses or communication from defense counsel.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)

In its Opposition, Defendant states that the Motion is moot because on August 25, 2022, defense counsel sent Defendant’s discovery responses to Plaintiff’s counsel’s electronic mail address.  (Oppos. p. 1; Paulus Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. B.)  Counsel Cherie Paulus states that the case was transferred to her on August 2, 2022, and did not contain the papers for the instant Motion.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)  She was informed about the Motion on August 18, 2022, and upon finding the Defendant’s discovery responses, drafted the responses to the interrogatories on August 18, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 3, 5.)  The Opposition also explains that Defendant Vandalen had provided her attorney with discovery responses and verification in September 2021.  (Oppos. p. 2.)  Prior defense counsel was responsible for failing to serve the discovery responses in a timely manner.  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff did not file a reply to the Opposition.

The Court notes that on July 1, 2022, Defendant had filed a Notice of Change of Handling Attorney and electronically served it on Plaintiff’s counsel.  On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff served the Motion on the former attorney’s electronic mail address.  Nevertheless, Defendant’s new counsel became aware of the Motion and filed an Opposition that included Defendant’s Responses to the Form Interrogatories.

In reviewing Defendant’s Responses to the Form Interrogatories, which defense counsel states were served on August 25, 2022, the Court finds that some responses contain objections, and the other responses are not verified by the Defendant.  (Oppos. pp. 5-7, Ex. B.)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(a), a party that does not serve a timely response to interrogatories waives the right to object to any interrogatories.  Furthermore, unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

B.    Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is granted, so the Court may impose sanctions on Defendant.

            Plaintiff requests sanctions as follows: attorney’s fees at a billing rate of $300.00 per hour for two (2) hours of drafting the motion and attending the hearing and $60.00 in filing fees.  (Taylor Decl. ¶ 10.)  The Court finds sanctions in the amount of $510.00 to be reasonable, based on one hour of attorney time for drafting the motion and a half hour (0.5) to attend the hearing, plus the filing fee.  Given that defense counsel states that Defendant herself provided responses to her attorneys in a timely manner, sanctions are to be paid by defense counsel.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant is to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Form Interrogatories within twenty (20) days’ notice of this order.  In addition, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $510.00, to be paid by Defendant’s counsel, to be paid within twenty (20) days’ notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.