Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV10566, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10566    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 61

ELVIS ANDZHUNYAN vs FCA US LLC

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Elvis Andzhunyan’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to Deem Matters Admitted against Defendant FCA US, LLC are DENIED as moot. No sanctions are awarded.

Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Likewise, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).) A party who fails to timely respond to requests for admission waives all objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff Elvis Andzhunyan (Plaintiff) served Defendant FCA US, LLC (Defendant) with form and special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on June 6, 2024, and Defendant served responses without verifications on July 9, 2024. (Aslanian Decl. ¶¶ 3–5.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has not provided its document production. (Aslanian Decl. ¶ 5.)

Defendant contends that it provided verifications of the discovery on October 4, 2024, the day the motions were filed, along with its document production. (Brezovec Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff in reply contends that Defendant has not provided objection-free responses, and that he is entitled to monetary sanctions for the filing of the motions. (Reply at pp. 4.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to objection-free responses, because Defendant timely served responses with objections, and only delayed in the serving of verifications. Objections need not be verified (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250) and thus objections are not waived when timely served.

Nor are sanctions warranted. Defendant served verifications the day the motions were filed, and Plaintiff’s sole request for verifications was made in a lengthy August 22, 2024 letter, numbering 22 pages, containing myriad other arguments and demands in relation to Defendant’s discovery. (Aslanian Decl. Exh. 3.) Whatever deterrent effect sanctions would achieve has already been accomplished by forcing Defendant to incur the expense of filing oppositions to motions that could have been taken off calendar the day they were filed.

The motions are DENIED as moot. No sanctions are awarded.