Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV14590, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14590 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff Joshua Lee Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Gayatri Hospitality, LLC (“Gayatri”), Classic Motor Inn (“Inn”), and Does 1-25 for general negligence and premises liability.
On June 21, 2024, Gayatri and Inn filed an answer.
On August 12, 2024, Gayatri filed (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (3) a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on September 17, 2024. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 10, 2024, Gayatri filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 19, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Gayatri asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one. Gayatri also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides in part:
“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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a), (b), (c).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in part:
“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. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
DISCUSSION
A. Gayatri’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents
On June 10, 2024, Gayatri served request for production of documents, set one, on Plaintiff.
On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified objection-only responses.
Gayatri argues that the unverified objections are the equivalent of no responses and the Court should compel Plaintiff to provide verified substantive responses, without objections, and responsive documents.
Plaintiff’s objections did not require a verification. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections”].)
When a party believes that objections to a request for production of documents are without merit or are too general, the party may file a timely motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 after meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. Under the Eighth Amended Standing Order, the Court will not hear a motion to compel further discovery responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 until after the moving party schedules and participates in an Informal Discovery Conference.
The Court denies the motion.
B. Gayatri’s motions to compel responses to special and form interrogatories
On June 10, 2024, Gayatri served special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff.
On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff served unverified objection-only responses.
Gayatri argues that the unverified objections are the equivalent of no responses and the Court should compel Plaintiff to serve verified substantive responses without objections.
Plaintiff’s objections did not require a verification. (See Code Civ. Proc., §2030.250, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections”].)
When a party believes that objections to interrogatories are without merit or are too general, the party may file a timely motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 after meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. Under the Eighth Amended Standing Order, the Court will not hear a motion to compel further discovery responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 until after the moving party schedules and participates in an Informal Discovery Conference.
The Court denies the motions.
C. Sanctions
Plaintiff has not requested sanctions and has not provided a declaration stating the amount of time his counsel spent opposing Gayatri's unsuccessful motions. Therefore, the Court does not impose sanctions on Gayatri under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300, subdivision (c), and 2030.290, subdivision (c).
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Gayatri Hospitality, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Joshua Lee Miller’s responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions.
The Court DENIES Defendant Gayatri Hospitality, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Joshua Lee Miller’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions.
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.