Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV45720, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45720    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 29

Morgan Tai Adkins v. Alberto Valero, et al.

Thursday, September 29, 2022 

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are 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, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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(c).) 

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On October 1, 2021, Defendants served Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Kane Decl., Exh. A.) The responses were due by November 2, 2021. On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed counsel for Defendant requesting an extension to provide discovery responses to November 16, 2021. Counsel for Defendant granted that extension. (Id., Exh. B.) On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff’s Counsel again emailed counsel for Defendant requesting an additional extension to provide discovery responses to November 30, 2021. Counsel for Defendant granted a second discovery response extension. (Id., Exh. C.) On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff’s Counsel served unverified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, containing only boilerplate objections. To date, there have been no substantive responses to the outstanding written discovery requests.

However, Plaintiff has timely responded by objecting to the discovery. A response may consist of either an answer, or objection. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210(a).) Moreover, “[t]he party to whom the [request] is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.250(a).) “The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.250(c), 2031.250(c), 2033.240(c).) Therefore, as Plaintiff served only objections to the discovery requests, Plaintiff’s counsel’s signature is sufficient.

As such, because Plaintiff timely responded to the discovery requests, the motions are denied. As the motions are denied, the request for sanctions is also denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.