Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV08548, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S VERTICAL INTERVAL MEDIA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST, SET ONE

On December 16, 2024, defendant Vertical Interval Media, Inc. (Vertical) filed this motion to compel plaintiff Tumo Foudation (Tumo) to provide verified, objection-free responses to Vertical’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and to deem admitted Vertical’s Requests for Admission, Set One, against Tumo. Vertical also requests sanctions against Plaintiff.

If a party to whom interrogatories or inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).) ¿ If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a); 2033.280, subd. (a).)¿

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b); 2033.280, subd. (b).); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Vertical requests judicial notice of proofs of service of the propounded discovery on Tumo, Tumo’s discovery responses served on December 11, 2024, and email communications between opposing counsel. The unopposed request is GRANTED. However, the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters within the documents. (See C.R. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 110.)¿

Vertical served Tumo with the at-issue discovery on August 16, 2024, October 2, 2024, and October 11, 2024. (See Salins Decl.) Tumo eventually served verified responses on December 11, 2024. (Id.) Nonetheless, Vertical moves for an order compelling Tumo to provide verified, objection-free responses to its first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents, and an order deeming admitted its Requests for Admission, Set One, against Tumo on the sole ground Tumo’s discovery responses were not verified by an officer with the authority to bind Plaintiff. When a responding party is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, the Code of Civil Procedure requires that one of its officers or agents sign the discovery response under oath on behalf of that party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (b); 2031.250, subd. (b); 2033.240, subd. (b).)

There is merit to Vertical’s contention. Here, Tumo is a corporation. Although an individual named “Sawyer Heskock” verified Tumo’s responses to Vertical’s discovery requests, there is no indication whether Hescock is Tumo’s officer or agent. (See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. B, E, F, and H.) Effectively, Tumo has not responded to Vertical’s discovery. Accordingly, all objections to the discovery requests are waived. Further, Vertical is entitled to an order compelling responses to the interrogatories and production demands and to deem admitted the requests for admission against Tumo.

Vertical requests sanctions against Tumo.¿ Given that Tumo has not provided responses verified by its officer or agent, the court finds sanctions are warranted. Further, in the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿ Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Tumo in the sum of $810.00, consisting of two hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $60.00 in filing fees.[1]

Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Tumo Foundation is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted is deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $810.00 to Defendant, by and through its counsel. ¿

Discovery responses are to be provided, and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] If Tumo represents to the court or otherwise establishes Hescock is Tumo’s officer or agent, the court will adopt only the monetary sanctions portion of this order.