SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background¿ 

Defendant Giga Cloud Technology (USA) INC. (“Defendant”) propounded special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff Maria Eugenia Henriquez (“Plaintiff”) on June 12, 2023. Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension through July 31, 2023, but no responses were received by that date. On August 14, 2023, after having still received no responses, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses be served without objections. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served unverified responses with objections. After a series of meet and confers, Plaintiff served supplemental responses four times. Defendant contends the fourth supplemental responses to special interrogatories, set one, were served with objections that have been waived, and without verification. Defendant seeks responses to only certain interrogatories only, namely Nos. 1, 2, and 7.   

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the motion is procedurally defective because it does not follow the rules for a motion to compel further with a separate statement, IDC, and timing requirement. Plaintiff also argues the merit of the responses and objections served, and seeks sanctions against Defendant. 

In reply, Defendant contends this is a motion to compel, not a motion to compel further, and reiterates objections were waived.  

The motion was initially set to be heard on February 16, 2024. However, the Court was not available to hear oral argument on that date, and Plaintiff’s counsel requested oral argument. (Min. Order, Feb. 16, 2024.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the hearing was continued to March 1, 2024.  

 

II. Motion to Compel 

For a motion to compel discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)    

Here, this motion was brought pursuant to CCP § 2030.290 (compelling responses), not CCP § 2030.300 (compelling further responses). There is no separate statement, IDC, or timing requirement for a motion to compel. (CCP § 2030.290). Thus, at present, the Court reviews only two narrow issues: (1) whether objections were waived and (2) whether verifications were served. The Court will not consider the merits of any arguments related to the sufficiency of the responses at this time. That issue is reserved for a motion to compel further responses and for discussion at IDC.  

Plaintiff argues that objections were never relinquished. However, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s initial service of the responses were untimely. A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Plaintiff did not move for relief from waiver of objections. Therefore, any objections, including those based on privilege, are waived and the waiver carries forth to the supplemental responses. Additionally, fact-specific responses require verification. (CCP § 2030.250.)  

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant requests verified and objection-free responses as to Nos. 1, 2, and 7 of special interrogatories, set one, only. The Court limits its order to that requested in the Notice, and Plaintiff is ordered to serve the verified responses, without objections, to Nos. 1, 2, and 7 of Defendant’s special interrogatories, set one, within fifteen (15) days. (CCP §2030.290 (b).) 

 

III. Sanctions¿ 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)¿ Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $5,250 for the motion and for the time spent in meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel.  

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)        

Defendant is awarded two hours to prepare the motion to compel, one hour to appear at the hearing, and one hour to prepare the reply, all at the requested rate of $230 per hour, for a total of $920 in attorney fees.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $920, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.