Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV15479, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15479    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 31

The motions are granted in part. 

Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on Defendant on July 21, 2022.  Plaintiff provides that after multiple extensions were granted, responses were due on or before October 17, 2022.  Plaintiff avers that to date Defendant has failed to serve verified responses to the discovery requests.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs and deeming the RFAs admitted.

Defendant opposes each motion.  Defendant argues that it served objection only responses on Plaintiff on October 17, 2022, which was the deadline agreed to by Plaintiff.  Defendant contends that objections do not need to be verified, and that to the extent Plaintiff argues the objections are improper, Plaintiff must move to compel further responses. 

In reply, Plaintiff avers that Defendant’s responses to the discovery are not objection only responses.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant provided a substantive response to at least one question in each set of discovery, which require verifications.  In particular, Plaintiff asserts that RFAs No. 20, RPDs No.74, form interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 9.2 and 15.1, and special interrogatory No. 23 contain substantive responses but are unverified.

A “hybrid response” contains an objection and a fact specific response.  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)  “[T]here is no need to verify that portion of the response containing the objections. Thus, if the response is served within the statutory time period, that portion of the response must be considered timely notwithstanding the lack of verification. The omission of the verification in the portion of the response containing fact-specific responses merely renders that portion of the response untimely and therefore only creates a right to move for orders and sanctions … as to those responses but does not result in a waiver of the objections made.”  (Id. at 657-58.)

Consequently, Defendant is not required to serve a verification for its discovery responses containing objections only.  (Id.)  However, the portions of the responses identified by Plaintiff containing a fact-specific response are untimely and subject to sanctions.  Because the fact-specific portion of these responses are unverified, they are tantamount to no response at all.  (Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348.) 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are granted in part as follows: Defendant is ordered to serve verifications/verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 1.1., 9.2, and 15.1, special interrogatories, set one, No. 23, and RPDs, set one, No. 74 within ten days.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b).)  However, the objections contained in each response are not waived.  The motions are denied as to the remaining discovery requests. 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs, set one, admitted is granted as to RFA No. 20.  The objections contained therein are not waived.  The motion is denied as to remaining RFAs. 

Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)  Because the motions are being granted only in part, Plaintiff is not awarded the full sanctions requested.  Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing the motions at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney fees award of $200.  The court also awards four motion filing fees of $61.65 each, or $246.60 in costs. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $446.60, within twenty (20) days. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 9^th day of May 2023