Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV08476, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08476    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 30

LYNN ALLEN JETER vs REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 20 days of this order. The request for sanctions is DENIED.  Moving party is ordered to give notice.

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.)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories 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).)

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 December 19, 2023, Defendant TF Reg served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Aloyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) As of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff has not served responses to TF REG’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Id., ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff did attempt to gather information in response to the subject Interrogatories. However, it was necessary for her to retrieve an old business computer and have a former employee attempt to access the requested information of the subject Interrogatories. It was difficult for Plaintiff to coordinate the assistance she needed with the old business computers in order to access pertinent information. Plaintiff argues the responses were prepared. (Becks Decl., Exh. A.)

However, the responses are not verified. An unverified response is the equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (Cook) (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

As Defendants properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to provide responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to a court order directing Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery request served on Plaintiff. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff under CCP section 2023.030. However, CCP section 2023.030 “does not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.) In any event, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification and that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c).)  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 20 days of this order. The request for sanctions is DENIED.