Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01284979, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling
Motions to Compel Discovery and Motion to Deem Admitted
Defendant Ryan Smith’s Motions for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Serve Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are DENIED without prejudice.
Defendant Ryan Smith’s Motion for Order that Request for Admissions, Set One Propounded on Plaintiff Be Deemed Admitted is DENIED without prejudice.
All requests for sanctions in conjunction with the instant motions are DENIED.
Defendant Ryan Smith (Defendant Smith) moves to compel Plaintiff Sylvia Vorrath to serve verified responses to Defendant Smith’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant Smith also moves that the Request for Admissions, Set One propounded on the Plaintiff be deemed admitted.
Compelling Responses to Discovery Requests
When a party properly propounds interrogatories and the party receiving the interrogatories fails to respond, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)
Similarly, when a party properly propounds requests for production and the party receiving the requests fails to respond, “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
If the responding party serves a response (rather than serving no response at all), a party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
If the responding party serves a response to requests for the production of documents, a party may move for an order compelling further responses on the grounds that: (1) a statement of compliance with the request is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
Defendant Smith contends that Plaintiff’s responses are not compliant with the Civil Procedure Code because they were not verified by the Plaintiff. However, the Code requires that the response to interrogatories or document requests be verified under oath “unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a), 2031.250, subd. (a).) Thus, if Plaintiff’s responses contain only objections, a verification is not necessary.
Here, none of Defendant Smith’s Motions to Compel include Plaintiff’s responses or a separate statement as required by the Rules of Court. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345(a)-(b).) Defendant’s counsel testifies that “Plaintiff served unverified responses,” (Decl. of Robert J. Dagmy [Dagmy Decl.], ¶ 4, underline original), but does not describe whether or not Plaintiff served substantive responses or only objections.
Thus, Defendant Smith has not shown nor can the court ascertain whether Plaintiff’s responses contained only objections. Defendant Smith has failed to meet his burden to show that Plaintiff’s responses were not compliant with the Civil Procedure Code. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [“The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”].)
Deeming Matters as Admitted
When a party properly propounds requests for admission and the party receiving the requests fails to respond, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
The court is required to grant this order, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Thus, a matter may deemed admitted only where the responding party fails to serve any responses at all. Defendant Smith’s counsel admits that Plaintiff did serve a response to the Request for Admission, Set One. (See Dagmy Decl., ¶ 4.)
Defendant Smith contends that Plaintiff’s responses were not verified, which is tantamount to serving no responses at all. This is true, but only if the responses contain a substantive response. On the other hand, if the responses to the request for admission contains only objections, then no verification is necessary. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).)
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Smith has not shown that the responses to the Request for Admission, Set One contained substantive responses and thus needed to be verified. The court must deny the motion.
Sanctions
The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).)
The court finds that Defendant Smith acted with substantial justification and that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust in the circumstances here. There is no indication that Defendant Smith brought these motions to compel in bad faith in order to harass Plaintiff or delay the proceedings. Further, it is possible that Defendant Smith could have prevailed on these motions, if not for a technical oversight.
With respect to requests for admission, the Civil Procedure Code requires the court to award sanctions against a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, but does not require the imposition of sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully moves that matters should be deemed admitted or to compel further response. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, 2033.280, subd. (c).)
The court will therefore deny the request for sanctions against Defendant Smith.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.