TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motions to compel verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents are 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.)

Compel RPDs 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents 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), 2031.300(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 Brown and Requests for Production on Plaintiff Adkins. (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, Plaintiffs have 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 Plaintiffs served only objections to the discovery requests, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s signature is sufficient.

As such, because Plaintiffs 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’ motions to compel verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents are DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.