Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01226778, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

The motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (set one), and motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents (set one) of Defendant Imperial Spa Fullerton, LLC is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

However, Plaintiff Adriana Alonso is relieved from her waiver of objections to the above discovery responses.

The court ORDERS Plaintiff Adriana Alonso to pay Defendant Imperial Spa Fullerton, LLC sanctions in the amount of $1,000.

Defendant Imperial Spa Fullerton, LLC, moves to compel verified responses without objection from Plaintiff Adriana Alonso to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

Defendant asserts that it properly served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff on 04/14/2022 and granted an extension of time to respond to 06/18/2022. Plaintiff served responses to the discovery requests on 06/17/2022, but the responses did not include verifications or the requested documents.

A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time “[i]f a party to whom [discovery requests] are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), & 2031.300, subd. (b).)

By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party waives “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories [and RFPs], including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff argues that the motions are moot because Plaintiff served verifications and produced responsive documents about a month after the deadline on 07/18/2022. (See Hakkak Decl., ¶ 4.) The service of the verifications and documents does not render the motions moot because the issues of Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s request for sanctions are still before the court.

Where a verification is required, an unverified response is invalid and is the equivalent of no response at all. (See Appleton vs. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Thus, Plaintiff failed to serve discovery requests in a timely manner and may have waived the objections asserted in her responses. (See Jonoobi Decls., ¶ 6, Exhs. D [asserting “general objections” that Plaintiff “incorporates into each and all specific responses to the individual requests . . . .”].)

Further, Plaintiff did not serve her verifications or responsive documents until after Defendant filed the instant motions. Thus, Plaintiff’s conduct forced Defendant to bring the instant motions and Plaintiff may be subject to an award of sanctions.

While a party that serves untimely responses to a discovery request waives any objection to that request, the court may relieve the party of the waiver if it finds that: 1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with the relevant discovery statutes and 2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), & 2031.300, subd. (a).)

In this case, Plaintiff cured the primary defects in its responses by subsequently serving verifications and responsive documents. In addition, the noncompliance was due to Plaintiff’s counsel having “great difficulty in getting in contact with the client.” Plaintiff has met the requirements to be relieved of her waiver of objections.

However, the standards for sanctions are different. The court must impose monetary sanctions against a party that opposes a motion to compel unless “substantial justification” or “circumstances [that] make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff’s undisputed noncompliance placed Defendant in the position of having to bring the instant motions to compel. And, while difficulties with getting into contact with the Plaintiff might constitute “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,” they do not constitute “substantial justification” or “circumstances [that] make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” The court therefore must impose sanctions.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.