Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC06236, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC06236    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 26

Lupa-Chazan v. Garcia, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2033.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Daniel Lupa-Chazan’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED SOLELY AS TO NO. 101.1; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

DEFENDANT ALICIA GARCIA IS TO SERVE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORY, SET ONE, NO. 101.1 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Daniel Lupa-Chazan (“Plaintiff”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Alicia Garcia (“Defendant Alicia”) on January 8, 2024. (Motions, Lupa-Chazan Decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, and Request For Sanctions on February 13, 2024. Defendant Alicia filed oppositions on March 6, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on March 12, 2024.

Discussion

Defendant Alicia served responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, on February 7, 2024. (Id. at Exh. A.) The Motion to Compel Responses is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, which pertains to initial responses. Plaintiff argues that the responses are tantamount to no response at all because they were not verified but also admits that they contain objections. (Citing Appleton v. Superior Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632.) Responses containing objections need not be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) The responses to Form Interrogatory, Set One, Nos. 102.4, 102.5, 102.9, 102.10, 102.11, 115.2, 120.1, 120.3, 120.5, 120.8., therefore, did not have to be verified to be Code-compliant responses. An order compelling responses to Form Interrogatory, Set One, is granted only as to No. 101.1.

Defendant Alicia served responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, on February 7, 2024. (Id. at Exh. A.) The Motion to Compel Responses is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, which pertains to further responses. A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2).) The motion is not accompanied by a separate statement, as required. Regarding the merits, Plaintiff again argues that the responses are tantamount to no response at all because they were not verified but also admits that they contain objections. (Citing Appleton v. Superior Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632.) As previously explained, responses containing objections need not be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).) The responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 1-14, therefore, did not have to be verified to be Code-compliant responses. An order compelling responses to Request for Admission, Set One, is denied.

In light of the ruling predominately denying these motions, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Daniel Lupa-Chazan’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED SOLELY AS TO NO. 101.1; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

DEFENDANT ALICIA GARCIA IS TO SERVE CODE-COMPLIANT RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORY, SET ONE, NO. 101.1 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.