SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

Defendant Yigal Spindler (“Defendant”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”) on Plaintiff Brenda Knox (“Plaintiff”) on November 4, 2022. Plaintiff served objection responses on December 9, 2022. On January 30, 2023, defense counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting verified responses without objections on or before February 6, 2023. Defendant contends Plaintiff has not provided verified responses, without objections, to date. 

Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that Defendant refused to grant an extension to Plaintiff to serve responses. Plaintiff’s counsel had requested a thirty-day extension on December 8, 2022. In response, defense counsel stated they would only grant an extension if Plaintiff served responses without objections. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel served objection responses. Plaintiff argues rather than a motion to compel, Defendant should have brought a motion to compel further after engaging in an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). Further, on October 4, 2023, Defendant served on Plaintiff supplemental demands for form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs. On October 14, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant verified responses to the supplemental requests. Plaintiff avers defense counsel stated on October 18, 2023 that they were keeping the motion on calendar for monetary sanctions only. 

Defendant propounded discovery on November 2, 2022 via both electronic mail and mail. Plaintiff avers there was no agreement between the parties consenting to electronic service. Therefore, by statute, Plaintiff had 30 days to respond to written discovery, and 5 days added since the discovery requests were served by mail. Thus, the due date for Plaintiff to provide responses, not counting holidays, was December 9, 2022. Plaintiff timely served responses on December 9, 2022. Objection-only responses are still responses, and do not require verification. Plaintiff is correct that the appropriate motion to bring was a motion to compel further after meet and confer efforts, with an IDC requirement.  

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions compelling responses to discovery propounded on December 9, 2022 are improper, and therefore DENIED. For the same reasons, the request for sanctions is also DENIED.