TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendant Rexford Manor Homeowners Association’s Motion to Compel Cross-Complainant David Schwarcz’s Discovery Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED as MOOT.

Cross-Defendant Allstate Investment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Cross-Complainant David Schwarcz’s Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One and Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two is DENIED as MOOT.

Cross-Defendant Rexford Manor Homeowners Association’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Cross-Defendant Allstate Investment Group, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving parties to give notice. 

REASONING

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Cross-Defendant Allstate Investment Group, Inc. (“Allstate”) has filed two motions as one, that is, its motion concerns two sets of discovery, and each discovery request warranted its own motion. Allstate is required to pay one additional filing fees of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order. Future failures to file the proper number of motions or to reserve the proper number of motion hearing reservations may result in a continuance of the motion hearing.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. (Ibid.) There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. (Contra Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement for motion to compel further responses].)

Notably, where responses are provided but the responses are not verified, the responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636.)

Cross-Defendant Rexford Manor Homeowners Association (“Rexford Manor HOA”) served Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Schwarcz (“Schwarcz”) with its Form Interrogatories, Set One on December 21, 2023. (Mot., Partida Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses were due on January 22, 2024, and Rexford HOA granted two extensions, but no verified responses were received. (Mot., Partida Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Allstate served Schwarcz with its Demand for Production of Documents, Set One on December 21, 2023 and its Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two on July 29, 2024. (Mot., Partida Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses were due on January 22, 2024 and August 30, 2024, respectively, and Allstate granted two extensions, but no verified responses were received. (Mot., Partida Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

Schwarcz states in the opposition that substantive responses were provided to both parties, but the responses were not verified. (Opp’n, Spurley Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) It appears the motions are intentionally vague about this point, as the moving parties refer only to a failure to provide “verified responses” without informing the Court in any way that they are seeking only verifications. While it is true that unverified responses are tantamount to no responses, the Court would appreciate having all information relevant to a motion rather than learning this in the opposition. Schwarcz also states that verifications were provided after receipt of this motion. (Opp’n, Spurley Decl. ¶ 10.)

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant Rexford Manor Homeowners Association’s Motion to Compel Cross-Complainant David Schwarcz’s Discovery Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED as MOOT. Cross-Defendant Allstate Investment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Cross-Complainant David Schwarcz’s Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One and Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two is DENIED as MOOT.

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) If a motion to have requests for admission deemed admitted is filed, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

The moving parties request $406.50 in monetary sanctions for each motion. The Court exercises its discretion to deny the requests for sanctions here. The Court encourages resolution of issues without court intervention, and the motions do not demonstrate that the moving parties exhausted all avenues to obtain the verifications before filing the motions. Moreover, the moving parties did not inform Schwarcz that they would file motions if verifications were not provided by a certain date, and the moving parties did not provide all necessary information to the Court upon filing their motions. For these reasons, Cross-Defendant Rexford Manor Homeowners Association’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED, and Cross-Defendant Allstate Investment Group, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.