Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21SMCV01968, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01968    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: R

Ramirez moves to compel further responses to discovery he propounded.  The motion is procedurally improper; defendants are correct that a separate statement was required.  However, the court does have discretion to consider the motion anyway.  In the interest of time, the court will do so.  Ramirez contends that as to some of the discovery, it does not need to comply with certain requirements because there was no verification.  However, no verifications are required where the response consists only of objections.

The court has reviewed the discovery and the responses.

Having reviewed the objections, the court finds that some of the objections are proper, but many are frivolous.  The court does not believe it is Ramirez’s job nor the court’s to separate the frivolous from the potentially meritorious and in the future the court will view such objections as being in bad faith and therefore of no moment.  Accordingly, in the future, all such objections will be waived—the good along with the make-weight.  That is not to say that every objection must be meritorious; it is only to say that all objections must be at least colorable. 

Turning to the specifics, and the first set of RFP’s, RFP’s 3-5, 7, 8 appear proper and the objections appear boilerplate.  Defendants will each respond separately to each.  The other RFP’s in this set are objectionable.  No objections, other than objections based on attorney/client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, will be made (either because they have been overruled by this order or because the time to make them has passed).  If any documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege, a detailed log will be provided.

The second set of RFP’s is not really before the court.  Because defendants did not provide any substantive responses to the RFA, and therefore there was nothing to respond to in the RFP.

As to the RFA’s, the court believes that RFA’s 1-11, 15, and 17-19 are essentially proper and should have been responded to.  There are some potential objections, but none that could not have been addressed through a proper meet and confer had they not been interlaced with improper ones.  The court notes that, with the amended RFA responses, defendants will need to provide a response to the second set of RFP’s.  The same is true of the special interrogatories.  Because there are no substantive responses to the RFA’s, there is no response to the special interrogatories.  However, now that a response to the RFA will be forthcoming, defendants will have to respond substantively to special interrogatory 1.  (Special interrogatory 2 is improper and defendants’ objection to it is in order.  Defendants need not respond to that interrogatory.)

The court agrees with plaintiff that the jurat relating to the RFA’s is improper because the declarant’s name is omitted.  In the supplemental responses, the jurat will comply with law, meaning that a name will be legibly PRINTED identifying the declarant.

Supplemental verified responses will be provided as set forth above within 30 days and the documents will be provided at the same time.  As to all categories where the court is ordering production, the objections other than attorney-client privilege or attorney work product are OVERRULED.