Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2021-01211072, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation files the following discovery motions:  (1) motion establishing admissions propounded on defendant Marlene Eaton (ROA 25); (2) motion for establishing admissions propounded on defendant Green Sip Construction Inc. (ROA 26); (3) motion to compel verified responses of defendant Marlene Eaton as to form interrogatories, set no. 1; special interrogatories, set no. 1, and inspection demands, set no.1 (ROA 23); and (4) motion to compel verified responses of defendant Green Sip Construction Inc. to form interrogatories, set no. 1; special interrogatories, set no. 1;, and inspection demands, set no. 1 (ROA 24).  In addition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff has improperly combined multiple motions.  Specifically, at issue are actually eight discovery motions, not four.  Whether this was done to avoid paying the court filing fees or some other improper purpose, on this ground alone, the Court could deny the improper motions.   As no oppositions were filed to any of the discovery motions, the Court will endeavor to address the issues raised by the parties, but the Court admonishes the parties to avoid engaging in procedural improprieties, including “shortcuts.”

Failure to timely respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents results in a waiver of any objections to the requests. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).

Further, if a party to whom requests for admission were directed fails to serve a timely response, the 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. CCP § 2033.280(b).

Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.250, 2033.240, and 2031.250 require that the responding party sign responses to interrogatories, requests for admission and inspection demands under oath unless the response contains only objections. Where a verification is required, an unverified response is ineffective; it is the equivalent of no response at all. (See Appleton v. Sup.Ct. (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Chan) (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1550-1551 (disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn. 12).)

Here, on October 28, 2021, Balboa served each defendant with discovery including: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, (3) Inspection Demands, Set No.; and (4) Request for Admissions, Set No. One.  Defendants were granted until December 13, 2021 to respond.

On December 20, 2021, Defendant Green Sip served late, unverified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One; Inspection Demands, Set No.; and Request for Admissions, Set No. One. However, Defendant Green Sip did not serve any responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories.

On December 20, 2021, Defendant Eaton served late, unverified responses to Request for Admissions, Set No. One.  However, Defendant Eaton did not serve any responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories; Special Interrogatories; or Inspection Demands.

To date, despite attempts from Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain verified responses to all of its discovery requests, no other responses, verified or otherwise, have been received.

In addition, the motions are unopposed. Thus, Defendants do not dispute the motion or the requested sanction amounts.

As unverified responses are inadequate, the Court has no choice but to grant the motions in their entirety.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions are GRANTED IN FULL.

Defendants Green Sip Construction Inc. and Marlene Eaton are ORDERED to provide verified responses, without objections, to: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, and (3) Inspection Demands, Set No. One that were served by Plaintiff on October 28, 2021, within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

In addition, Defendants Green Sip Construction Inc. and Marlene Eaton are ORDERED to pay the requested monetary sanctions associated with the above motions in the amount of $1,360, each, within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set No. One served on Defendants Green Sip Construction Inc. and Marlene Eaton on October 28, 2021 are DEEMED ADMITTED. 

In addition, Defendants Green Sip Construction Inc. and Marlene Eaton are ORDERED to pay the requested monetary sanctions associated with the motions to establish admissions in the amount of $1,240, each, within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

Moving Party to give notice.