SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motions to Compel¿ 

Defendant Oscar Willie (“Defendant”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Eric Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) on June 8, 2022. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the propounded discovery. On January 20, 2023, Defense counsel send a meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting verified and substantial responses by February 3, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not served verified responses to the propounded discovery. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to serve verified responses, without objections, and to pay sanctions.  

As of December 1, 2023, no opposition was filed.  

For a motion to compel initial 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; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) 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); § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

CCP § 2030.260 and CCP § 2031.260 provides that a shall serve responses within 30 days of service. Furthermore, the parties are provided an additional 5 days if served by mail, and 2 days if served by electronic mail. (CCP § 1013.) Here, Defendant propounded discovery on June 8, 2022 via electronic mail and therefore Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s discovery were due on or before July 10, 2022. However, Defendant’s moving paper is silent as to whether it had provided any extensions of time to Plaintiff to serve responses, as Plaintiff served unverified responses containing objections only on October 6, 2022.  

It is unclear to the Court whether the responses were untimely served and therefore objections waived. Therefore, the Court presumes Defendant did offer an extension in time based on the lack of any contention concerning timeliness and waiver of objections– defense counsel may clarify this issue at the hearing. In terms of the form interrogatory responses, Plaintiff only responded substantively to interrogatory no 1.1., and provided objection only responses to the remainder. Accordingly, the Court is guided by Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App.4th 651, 658, which stands for the proposition that omission of the verification portion of the response containing fact-specific responses merely renders that portion of the response untimely and therefore creates a right to move for orders and sanctions as to those responses, but does not result in a waiver of objections made. 

In terms of Plaintiff’s unverified responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories and RPDs, Plaintiff provided objections only; objection-only responses do not require verifications (unless objections had been waived). (See CCP §§ 2030.250(a); 2030.290(a).) 

Therefore, as signed verifications have not been served, and Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating otherwise, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verifications/verified responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one. (CCP §§ 2030.290 (a), (b).) 

 

II. Sanctions¿ 

 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) 

However, “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.)  

Defendant’s Notice does not comply with CCP §2023.040, because Defendant fails to properly identify the type of sanction and the party and/or attorney against whom sanctions are sought. The request for sanctions is therefore denied. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.