Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00906, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 22CHCV00906 Hearing Date: October 4, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 10/4/23
TRIAL DATE: 1/22/24
Case #22CHCV00906
MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSE
(Special
Interrogatory, Set 2, No.35)
Motion filed on 6/14/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Liza Porras
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a slip incident that occurred
on 2/27/21 at a Ralphs Grocery Store located in Valencia, California. On 10/17/22, Plaintiff Liza Porras
(Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant).
On 2/28/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special
Interrogatories, Set 2. (Buckley Decl.,
Ex.2). Special Interrogatory 35 asks
Defendant to “Please describe the location of all surveillance cameras that
were capable of capturing surveillance footage of the area where the INCIDENT
occurred at the subject Ralphs store.” Id. On 4/14/23, Defendant served unverified
responses to the Special Interrogatories.
(Buckley Decl., Ex3). Defendant’s
response to Special Interrogatory 35 consisted solely of objections. Id.
On 4/14/23, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter
regarding the responses. (Buckley Decl.,
Ex.4). On 4/28/23, Defendant sent a
written response wherein it stood by its objections to Special Interrogatory 35
and refused to supplement its response.
(Id., Ex.5). On 5/23/23,
Plaintiff replied to Defendant’s response requesting a further response by
6/6/23 or a motion would be filed. (Id.,
Ex.6). Defendant did not respond to
Plaintiff’s 5/23/23 letter and failed to serve a verification or response to
Special Interrogatory 35. (Buckley
Decl.)
Therefore, on 6/14/23, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba
Ralphs to provide a verified response, without objection, to Plaintiff’s
Special Interrogatory No.35 in Set 2.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the
amount of $2,861.65. No opposition or
other response to the motion has been filed.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff makes this motion pursuant to CCP
2030.290. (See Notice of Motion,
p.1:26-27, p.2:4-5; Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p.8:8-10, p.10:8).
The subject Special Interrogatories, Set 2, consist of
six interrogatories, Special Interrogatories 30-35. As noted in the motion, on 4/14/23, Defendant
served responses to the subject discovery “which were unverified and
included a mere single response to Number 30; as to Numbers 31-35, Defendant
RALPHs served boilerplate, evasive and meritless objections.” (emphasis in original) (See Motion,
p.2:8-10).
CCP 2030.250 provides in relevant part:
“(a) The party to whom the
interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the
response contains only objections.
(emphasis added)
An unverified hybrid response, containing both objections
and fact-specific responses and served within the statutory period, make only
the fact-specific portion of the response untimely. Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. (1995)
40 CA4th 651, 658. In other words, there
is no need to verify the portion of a response containing objections and if
that portion is served within the statutory time period, it must be considered
timely. Id.
While it is unclear whether the statutory 45-day period
set forth in CCP 2030.300(c) applies to a response that contains only
objections (such as Defendant’s response to Special Interrogatory 35), it is
clear that Defendant’s objections to Special Interrogatory 35 did not need to
be verified and were complete and timely when served on 4/14/23. See CCP 2030.250(a), (c); CCP 2030.290
(“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely
response . . . ;” Food 4 Less, supra; The Rutter Group California
Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, Discovery, Ch.8F-7, Sections 8:1147.1,
8:1150.7-8.1150.8 citing Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. (Frye)
84 CA5th 127, 135-136.
As such, Plaintiff’s contention that, pursuant to CCP
2030.290, she is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide a
response to Special Interrogatory 35 without objection because Defendant failed
to timely respond to the interrogatory is without merit. (See Motion, p.8:8-12).
Also, even if this motion is not subject to the 45-day
limit set forth in CCP 2030.300(c), contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, a
separate statement, which was not filed, is required as this motion concerns the
content of Defendant’s discovery response.
(See Motion, p.7:26-p.8:4).
CRC 3.1345 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) Separate statement required
Except as provided
in (b), any motion
involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such
a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that
require a separate statement include a motion:
. .
.
(2) To compel further responses to
interrogatories;
(b) Separate statement not
required
A separate statement is not
required under the following circumstances:
(1) When no response has been provided to the
request for discovery;
. .
.
(c) Contents of separate
statement
A separate statement is a separate
document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the
information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the
responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and
complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to
determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be
incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement
must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for
admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further
response, answer, or production is requested--the following:
(1) The text of the request,
interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
(2) The text of each response,
answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
(3) A statement of the factual and
legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to
each matter in dispute;
. . .”
(bold in original; underlining
added)
Here, Defendant served a timely response to the subject
interrogatory consisting solely of objections which did not need to be
verified. As such, the Court cannot
compel Defendant to provide a further or substantive response without
objections on the ground that objections were waived.
While Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of sanctions
because the motion is being denied, the Court notes that Plaintiff has
incorrectly cited CCP 2025.480(j) which relates to depositions in support of
the request for sanctions. (See
Motion, p.9:11-16).
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.