Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV26613, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26613    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Plaintiff Adrien Aaron Garcia (Plaintiff) moves to compel verified responses from Defendant Juan Carlos Olvera (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG), and Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  Defendant opposes the motions and Plaintiff replies to the oppositions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Plaintiff served the FROG and SROG on Defendant on October 5, 2021, via mail.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by November 9, 2021.  On January 24, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with responses to the SROG, and on April 4, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with responses to the FROG, however Defendant’s responses were unverified. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  Thus, the Court finds that Defendant failed to timely serve verified responses to the FROG and SROG on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  In opposition, Defendant’s counsel argues that monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel is inappropriate under the circumstances because Defendant’s counsel has lost contact with Defendant and has made every effort to provide all discoverable information to Plaintiff’s counsel.  In reply, Plaintiff requests the Court award sanctions against Defendant individually.  The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. 

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the FROG and SROG to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,250, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the moving and reply papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the FROG and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,250 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.