Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV31078, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31078    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. Defendant’s verified responses were initially due on August 6, 2024. Plaintiff granted multiple extensions, with the final deadline set for September 17, 2024. On September 17, 2024, defense counsel served objection-only responses to all discovery requests, except for Form Interrogatory No. 1.1.

According to Plaintiff’s own declaration, Defendant served the responses by the agreed-upon deadline of September 17, 2024. The responses are therefore timely. Furthermore, responses consisting solely of objections do not require verification. (See CCP §§ 2030.250(a), 2031.250(a), 2033.240(a).)

When a discovery response includes both objections and unverified fact-specific answers, only the fact-specific responses require verification. There is no requirement for objections to be verified, and objections remain timely even if unverified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) A lack of verification only leads to a waiver of objections if the initial response contains factual answers without objections. (Id.)

Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to provide verifications for his responses to number 1.1 of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of this order, as it contained a factual response.

However, Defendant correctly argues that the motions relating to Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production (RFPs), Special Interrogatories (SROGs), Requests for Admissions (RFAs), and the remaining Form Interrogatories (except No. 1.1) should have been filed as a Motion to Compel Further Responses, not a Motion to Compel Initial Responses.

Defendant is also correct that Personal Injury Hub Courts will not entertain Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses unless the parties have participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). (Eighth Amended Standing Order For Procedures In The Personal Injury Hub Court, p. 7.) The Court may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses if an IDC is not scheduled and completed before the hearing date. (Id.)

The parties are required to participate in an IDC before filing a Motion to Compel Further Responses, yet no IDC has been held or scheduled in this case. Furthermore, the motion fails to comply with various procedural requirements for a Motion to Compel Further Responses, including the submission of a separate statement.

Accordingly, the Court denies the present motions. Defendant is ordered to provide verification for Form Interrogatory No. 1.1. Should Plaintiff wish to pursue further responses from Defendant, Plaintiff must schedule an IDC and file a Motion to Compel Further Responses that complies with all statutory requirements.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.