Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 20STCV36338, Date: 2023-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV36338, Date: 2023-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36338 Hearing Date: December 22, 2023 Dept: 30

JENNIFER COHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL vs LAZ PARKING CALIFORNIA, LLC, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

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, subd. (b).) 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.)

Compel RPDs

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(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. 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.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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(c), 2031.300(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant LAZ Parking with Form Interrogatories, set one, Requests for Production, set one, and Special Interrogatories, set one. (Sargsyan Decl., ¶ 3; Exhs 1-3.) Plaintiff granted Defendant’s request for an extension of time up to April 21, 2021, in order to provide verified and complete discovery responses. On April 21, 2021, Plaintiff received Defendant’s unverified responses. (Id., Exh. 4.) Verified responses have not been provided.

In opposition, Defendant argues it served verified amended responses on December 8, 2023, and that it has been meeting and conferring with Plaintiff over these responses. Defendant has been repeatedly advising Plaintiff’s counsel of the status of its amended responses and its trouble obtaining verifications.

As Defendant has responded to the discovery at issue, the motions to compel responses are moot. The Court will note that when there are objections and answers to discovery, the objection portion of those responses are preserved so Defendant does not waive objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) Because Plaintiff granted an extension to respond by April 21, 2021, Defendant timely responded as to the objection portion of the responses only, and thus, Defendant did not waive the objections. That is because objections do not need verifications. (Id., at 656.) However, as to the portion that contained unverified answers, Plaintiff would have to move to compel further if she is not satisfied with those responses.

As to sanctions, defense counsel has provided substantial justification for the failure to serve timely responses. Moreover, the opposition was not unsuccessfully made. As such, the request for sanctions is denied.