On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff Josiah Winans filed this action against Defendants Maurice J. Williams (“Williams”), Hao Huang (“Huang”), and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, while Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Huang.   

On August 15, 2022, Williams (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) served Form Interrogatories (Set One),  Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production and Inspection of Documents and Other Tangible Things (“Request for Production”) on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff responded by serving unverified, objection only, responses.  Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff in an attempt to have Plaintiff provide further responses, but that attempt was unsuccessful.  On November 14, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to the discovery requests.   

On January 17, 2023, the Court heard Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).  At the hearing, the Court noted it was unclear whether the motion was timely made.  The Court continued the hearing to allow Defendant to supplement the motion to show that the responses to the Form Interrogatories were served on September 30, 2022.   

On February 15, 2023, Defendant’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration attaching proof of service of all at-issue discovery.  No opposition or reply have been filed. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.  

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)   

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3).)  However, a separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(1).)   

A review of Defendant’s counsel’s declaration shows Plaintiff served responses to the at-issue discovery on September 30, 2022.  (Supplemental Weissman Decl., ¶ 6, Exs. E, F, G.)  Thus, Defendant’s instant motions are timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  Moreover, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s further verified response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production.  Plaintiff provided unverified, objection-only responses to discovery.  The at-issue discovery is relevant to Defendant’s ability to prepare a defense to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Monetary Sanctions 

Defendant requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $860.0 for preparing and filing each motion for the total amount of $2,580.00.  A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party where the party fails to serve verified responses to an interrogatory request or fails to comply with a demand for inspection and production of documents by not producing the requested documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.)   

The Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is warranted.  Plaintiff has not provided verified responses to the discovery requests at issue and has failed to comply with the Request for Production.  Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.  Because Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the instant motions, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced total amount  of $780.00, which represents 3 hours of Defendant’s counsel’s time at Defendant’s counsel’s rate of $200.00 and $180.00 in filing fees.