Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 22, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On August 15, 2023, Defendant filed motions (1) to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set three, and for sanctions and (2) to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, and for sanctions.  The hearings were scheduled for September 28 and 29, 2023.  On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed oppositions.  On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed replies.  The Court continued the hearings on the motions to November 30, 2023.  The Court later advanced the hearings to November 6, 2023. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 15, 2023. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A.      Informal Discovery Conference 

The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” 

The parties participated in an IDC on July 11, 2023. The parties reached an agreement that was memorialized in a notice of outcome which Defendant filed on July 13, 2023.  The notice of outcome states in part:  “Plaintiff contends that her attorneys have conducted a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and have been unable to obtain the information requested by Defendant’s discovery. Plaintiff has agreed to provide further responses to each of the discovery requests at issue. In further responding to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff will confirm that the requested information is unknown both to herself and her current and former attorneys. In further responding to Defendant’s document production requests, Plaintiff will state her inability to comply in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.” 

B.       Timeliness of Motions 

A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the responses, or any supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).) Failure to file a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff never provided a verification for her responses to Defendant’s request for production of documents, set three, which Plaintiff served on March 20, 2023.  As a result, Defendant argues, no deadline existed to file a motion to compel further responses.  Plaintiff, however, contends that she served a verification by email on June 28, 2023, triggering the 45-day period to file a motion to compel.  According to Plaintiff, the deadline was August 14, 2023, the day before Defendant filed the motion. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff served the verification for the responses to the requests for production of documents on June 28, 2023, Defendant had 45 days plus 2 days (due to service by email) from June 28 to file the motion to compel further responses to those requests.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B), 2031.310, subd. (c).)  The motion was timely because Defendant filed it before the August 16, 2023 deadline.  For the same reason, the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three – for which Plaintiff served a verification on June 28, 2023 – is timely. 

C.   Meet and Confer 

“A motion to compel must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  “A meet and confer declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  

Defendant has satisfied its meet and confer obligation. 

D.      Separate Statement 

With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.  

Defendant filed separate statements for both motions. 

APPLICABLE LAW 

A.      Inspection demand 

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: 

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 

“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. 

“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 

“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: 

“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. 

“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. 

“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. 

* * * 

“(h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides: 

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) 

B.       Interrogatories 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides:         

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: 

“(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 

“(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 

“(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c), provides: 

“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) 

C.    Discovery sanctions 

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that 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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 

“Misuses of the discovery process include . . . 

“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

I.        Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to demand for production of documents, set three, numbers 40 and 45 ^[1]

  Propounded: January 19, 2023

Unverified responses: March 20, 2023

Amended responses: August 23, 2023

  Granted:  40, 45

  At the IDC, the parties agreed that "[i]n further responding to Defendant’s document production requests, Plaintiff will state her inability to comply in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.”  Plaintiff's amended responses do not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. 

  Defendant requests sanctions of $888.78 based on 2.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $325 per hour.  Counsel spent 1.5 hours to prepare the motion and anticipated spending 1.0 hour to prepare a reply and attend the hearing.  In addition, Defendant seeks recovery of a hearing reservation fee of $61.65 and a charge of $14.63 to electronically file the motion. 

The Court grants sanctions of $701.28 based on 2.5 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250 per hour plus the hearing reservation fee and charge for electronic filing. 

II.      Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, numbers 79 through 86 

Propounded: February 2, 2023

Unverified responses:  March 20, 2023

Verification provided: June 28, 2023

Amended responses: August 23, 2023

  Denied: 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

At the IDC, the parties agreed that "[i]n further responding to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff will confirm that the requested information is unknown both to herself and her current and former attorneys."  In her August 23, 2023 amended responses, Plaintiff provided this confirmation.  Although Defendant argues that "Plaintiffs further responses continue to be deficient," Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff's amended responses violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c). 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set three, request numbers 40 and 45, and orders Plaintiff Margaret Lopez to provide further verified and code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested by November 27, 2023. 

The Court DENIES Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three, special interrogatory numbers 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86.

  The Court GRANTS Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation’s requests for sanctions on the motion to compel further responses to the request for production of documents, set three, and orders Plaintiff Margaret Lopez and her counsel to pay Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation $701.28 by November 27, 2023.

The Court DENIES Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corporation's request for sanctions on the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.