Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV09657, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, AND NOTICE OF FAILURE TO MEET AND CONFER

On April 17, 2024, plaintiff Sachin Patel (Plaintiff) filed a Judicial Council Form Complaint against defendant Office of the County Counsel (ALD) (hereafter, Defendant) for (1) general negligence, fraud, breach of contract, contract, and common counts. Plaintiff is self-represented.

On May 20, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. Defendant is represented by counsel.

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Request for Sanctions and Notice of Failure to Meet and Confer. Plaintiff seeks responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Things.

If a party to whom interrogatories and 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).)¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. ¿(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, 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); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 (Sinaiko) [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’”].)¿¿¿In an unlawful detainer action, responses to written discovery requests are due five days after they are served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (b).)

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, 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).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Things. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the sum of $45,000. In support, Plaintiff represents that he served Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on May 10, 2024 but has yet to receive a response. Plaintiff does not attach a copy of the discovery requests or any proof of service.

Defendant argues Plaintiff improperly served an individual attorney at Defendant’s office with the discovery requests. Counsel for Defendant obtained the discovery requests for the first time on October 23, 2024. (House Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 3.) Defendant further argues the discovery should have been served on defense counsel. In support, Defendant cites, generally, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010, 1012, and 1013. These statutory provisions do not help Defendant. There is no language prohibiting the service of discovery on a party as opposed to that party’s attorney of record. Notwithstanding, Defendant is represented by counsel. The better practice would have been to serve defense counsel with the discovery requests. If Plaintiff had done so, the need for this motion may very well have been obviated altogether. The court further notes that Defendant is an entity. It is not clear whether service was properly effected by delivering the discovery request to an unidentified individual attorney.

Alternatively, Defendant argues the motion is moot because responses have been verified. However, Defendant’s discovery responses do not appear to be verified. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Given that Defendant has known of the discovery requests since October 23, 2024, and has not yet served verified responses, the court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to the at-issue discovery requests.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Given that (1) Plaintiff did not attach the discovery requests or a supporting declaration to his motion, (2) the issue of whether Plaintiff should have served defense counsel with the discovery requests remains unresolved, and (3) Defendant’s responded (albeit without verification) to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the court finds sanctions in any amount are unwarranted.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, objection-free responses within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court