Judge Michael J. Strickroth, Case 2019-01112301 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2019-01112301, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Defendant Leanne Simpson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Oana Veronica Popa’s Answers to Special Interrogatories is DENIED as moot.

“It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing” Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-35. “Conduct frustrates the goal of a self-executing discovery system when it requires the trial court to become involved in discovery because a dispute leads a party to move for an order compelling [compliance with a discovery mechanism].” Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless otherwise limited by order of the court … any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence …”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (a), provides, “The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: [¶] (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. [¶] (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. [¶] (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part, “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.270, subdivision (a), explains, “The party propounding interrogatories, and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories . . . . [¶] (b) The agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 states: “(a) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: ¶ (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. ¶ (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. ¶ (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, states, in part, “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete . . . [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. . . . [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, by email on 03-09-2022. (Rchtouni Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1). As a result of this service, a response was due on or before 04-12-2022. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.260(a) and Code Civ. Proc. §1010.6(a)(4)(B)). On 04-08-2022, Plaintiff obtained an extension to provide responses by 04-29-2022. (Lazo Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. C).

On 04-29-2022, Plaintiff provided responses to Special Interrogatories. (Lazo Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. A and B). Defendant contends the responses were “fabricated” in part because the verification was signed by Plaintiff on 04-29-2022 at 12:50 PDT and the responses were emailed at 11:43 p.m. However, this seems to indicate the verification was signed after 12:00 p.m. (noon) and the responses were emailed approximately fifteen minutes before midnight that same day. There is no evidence of fabrication. Thus, the Motion is moot.

The request for sanctions is DENIED. Although a meet and confer effort is not required when no responses are received, a simple communication between counsel could have resolved this Motion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Leanne Simpson’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Oana Veronica Popa’s Answers to Special Interrogatories.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

Plaintiff Oana Veronica Popa’s Motion for Deemed Admissions Against Defendants Leanne Simpson and Aaron Simpson as to Requests for Admission Set One is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, states, “The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. [¶] Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, subdivision (a), provides, in part, “Within 30 days after service of the requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.260, subdivision (a), explains, “The party requesting admissions and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of admission requests, or to particular requests in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2033.250.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.) (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240 states: “(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections. ¶ (b) If that party is a public or private corporation, or a partnership or association or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party. . .”

“[U]nder both the former and present RFA statutes, and unlike motions to compel under both statutes and other discovery provisions, there is no time specified within which a propounding party must move the court to have matters deemed admitted. No doubt, a responding party may object or seek a protective order if it can show prejudice or some other equitable basis by which it is unfair to allow the propounding party to move to have RFAs admitted long after they were propounded. But an objection of that kind is directed to the equitable powers of the court …” Brigante v. Huang, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1569, 1584, disapproved of on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 987.

“Defendants tacitly concede, as they must, that the response to the RFA provided in behalf of Chan prior to the initial hearing on petitioner's motion failed to conform to the statutory prescription, as it was not signed by a party and was not under oath. As succinctly stated in Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 [253 Cal.Rptr. 762], ‘[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.’ [Citations.] Defendants should have anticipated that Chan's failure to timely file a verified response would have serious consequences.” Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Allen-Pacific) (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 1546, 1551 (disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, supra, at 983, fn. 12.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests for Admission, Set One on 2-10-22. (Lazo Decl., ¶ 2 and Exs. A and B). On 3-23-22, Defendants served unverified responses to this discovery request by way of email. (Lazo Decl., ¶ 3 and Exs. C and D). The responses contain objections and responses, which would require a verification.

Although Plaintiff requested verifications, Defendants did not provide them. Plaintiff filed this motion on 8-11-22.

After the Motion was filed, Defendants served verified supplemental responses on 10-4-22, via email. (Rchtouni Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Thus, Defendants have substantially complied and the request to deem the Requests for Admission admitted is moot.

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions in the amount of $1,710. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), states, in part, “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Therefore, the Court awards a monetary sanction in the amount of $1,710.

Therefore, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Plaintiff Oana Veronica Popa’s Motion for Deemed Admissions Against Defendants Leanne Simpson and Aaron Simpson as to Requests for Admission Set One.

Plaintiff to give notice.