Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV06186, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06186 Hearing Date: January 2, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff Silvia Castelan Triano (“Plaintiff”), representing herself without counsel, filed this action against Defendant Bok Yem Kim (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On May 1, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 18, 2023, Defendant filed motions (1) to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (4) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions. The motions were set to be heard on January 2, 2024.
On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Responsive Declaration to Motion to compel, request for Statement of Damages and Interrogatories.”
Trial is currently scheduled for September 17, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff
requests that the Court deny the requests for sanctions and submits documents
in an effort to satisfy her discovery obligations.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
B. Interrogatories
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) 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 a response to interrogatories, 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
C. Requests for admission
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.)
D. 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, but are not limited to, the following:
* * *
“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff did not serve timely responses to the request for production of documents, special interrogatories, and requests for admission and had not served responses to this discovery by the time Defendant filed these motions on October 18, 2023.
On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to form interrogatories, set one. (See Exh. D. [Silvia Triano’s Responses To Interrogatories].) The responses were not verified and did not include a proof of service. According to Defendant, despite Defendant's efforts to follow up with Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not provide a verification by the time Plaintiff filed the motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
In Plaintiff’s “Responsive Declaration to Motion to compel, request for Statement of Damages and Interrogatories,” Plaintiff (1) objects to imposition of sanctions and (2) “respond[s] and testif[ies] to the Motion and Interrogatories as follows: That I am the Plaintiff in this matter, I am attaching all items necessary to substantiate my claim and to the motion to compel and interrogatories filed by opposing counsel. Please see ATTACHMENTS of Medical Bills, Damages to Vehicle and Repairs.”
Plaintiff’s responsive declaration and attached documents do not moot Defendant’s motions because Plaintiff has not provided code-compliant verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. Therefore, the Court grants the motions.
Defendant requests $461.65 in sanctions for each motion based on two hours of attorney time at a rate of $200 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee. The motions are substantially similar and they are set to be heard together. In addition, Plaintiff, who is representing herself without counsel, has attempted to comply with her discovery obligations. The Court awards $846.60 in sanctions for all four motions based on three hours of attorney time and four filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Bok Yem Kim’s motion to compel Plaintiff Silvia Castelan Triano to respond to requests for production of documents, set one, and orders Plaintiff Silvia Castelan Triano to provide verified, code-compliant responses and produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 5, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Bok Yem Kim’s motion to compel Plaintiff Silvia Castelan Triano to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Silvia Castelan Triano to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by February 5, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of these rulings.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.