(3) Request for Monetary Sanctions is granted in a lowered amount. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs, Ofelia Orozco-Gonzalez and Paulin Aguirre-Gonzalez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Barry Gloth, City of Hawthorne, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Freeman Investment, Union Pacific Railroad, and DOES 1 through 100. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Liability for Dangerous Condition of Public Property; (2) Negligent Provision of Public Services; (3) Negligence – Wrongful Death; (4) Premises Liability; and (5) Products Liability.  

Per the moving papers, Defendant Barry Alan Gloth (“Gloth”) served Plaintiffs with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on August 14, 2023. Plaintiffs’ responses were due on September 15, 2023. When Plaintiffs failed to serve their verified responses, Gloth sent the first meet and confer letter to Plaintiff. Gloth notes that several extensions of time for Plaintiff to provide his initial responses were granted. Gloth notes that responses were ultimately provided on October 4, 2023. However, Gloth notes that Plaintiffs asserted untimely objections and denied Request for Admission No. 21.  

On November 7, 2023, Defendant Gloth sent a second meet and confer letter to Plaintiff. On January 10, 2024, Plaintiffs provided further responses. However, Gloth notes Plaintiffs did not provide any further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as to Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admission No. 21, and Plaintiff still maintained objections to special interrogatories, and even included new objections (Ofelia’s further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 17 and Paulin’s further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos 8, 17, 28, and 30. 

As such, Gloth is seeking an order compelling Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories without objection.  

On January 25, 2024, Gloth filed these two Motions to Compel Further Responses. On April 17, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearings. On April 23, 2024, Gloth filed new notices of continued hearing on the Motion to Compel Further. On May 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs. On May 16, 2024 and May 20, 2024, Gloth filed reply briefs.  

II. ANALYSIS  

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel initial responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 

Section §2031.310(a) provides in pertinent part: “On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the party demanding an inspection may move for an order compelling a further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete…. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” Further, if the responding party objects to an inspection demand, the response must “identify with particularity” any document or thing failing within any category in the demand to which the objection is made, and set forth the specific ground for objection. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240(b).) A statement of inability to comply must also (1) affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made, (2) that the inability to comply is because the responsive item has never existed, has been destroyed, lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been or is no longer in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.230.) The statement must also set forth the name and address of the person or organization believed to have possession, custody or control of the item. Finally, if any documents are withheld pursuant to a claimed privilege, the responding party must ‘(A) identify with particularity [the] document…, and (B) set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection…, the particular privilege…[and] if an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product [under Section 2018.010], that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b).)¿¿ 

This Court notes that Defendant Gloth is seeking further responses from Plaintiffs as to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection.  On the record before the Court, while Plaintiffs ultimately served responses they were nineteen (19) days late despite several extensions being granted by Defendant Gloth.  

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Gloth’s motions are moot since Plaintiff has provided amended responses to Request for Admission, which they argue dismisses their requirement to file an amended response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, and notes that prior to the hearing of this motion, Plaintiffs will have provided Gloth with amended discovery responses as to Special Interrogatories, as encouraged by this Court during the March 14, 2024 IDC. But as of 3:30 p.m. on the day before the hearing, the Court has no declaration or other evidence that a further verified set of answers to the special interrogatories were provided despite the recent IDC in this case.  Ms. Boyd’s May 20, 2024 Reply Declaration states no further responses to the special interrogatories had been received.   

In Gloth’s reply brief as to the Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, Gloth contends that Plaintiffs’ amended response to the Request for Admission No. 21 was not an unqualified admission and necessitates response or withdrawal. Gloth notes that although Plaintiffs changed the response from “Admit as phrased” to “Admit,” but has nonetheless re-asserted untimely and unmerited objections. The Court agrees. The objections are untimely and overruled.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further verified response without objections. As such, this Court GRANTS Gloth’s motion and requires Plaintiff to provided amended, verified, code-compliant responses WITHOUT objection on or before June 6, 2024.  

In Gloth’s reply brief as to the Special Interrogatories, he notes that Plaintiffs have provided inadequate responses and have raised untimely and unmerited objections. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide amended, verified, code-compliant responses WITHOUT objection on or before June 6, 2024. The untimely responses to initial discovery rendered Plaintiffs unable to object to these requests.  

Sanctions  

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d), The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.  

In connection with Gloth’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Gloth has requested $3,176 in monetary sanctions. Gloth notes that this is explained in Edye A. Hill’s declaration. However, the Court notes that while a declaration is entitled to be that of Edye A. Hill’s and in connection with the Motion regarding Form Interrogatories, the filing appears to be a duplication of Danielle M. Boyd’s declaration. As such, the Court will need a supplement filing or a statement presented during oral argument in order to rule on this motion. Assuming that issue is resolved at the hearing, the Court would tentatively award a like amount in monetary sanctions for the from interrogatory motion as for the special interrogatory motion.