Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV9328, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV9328, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV9328 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: 29

Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Margaret E. Davis.

Tentative

The motion to compel is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On December 28, 2020, Micael Nystrom (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Margaret E. Davis (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident on December 28, 2018, near the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. Defendant filed her answer on March 14, 2022.

On May 3, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Form Interrogatories (Set One). (Castronovo Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff served objections and unverified responses. (Id., ¶ 6; Exh. B.) Approximately 18 months later, Defendant followed up with Plaintiff, but no verifications were provided. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.)

On February 7, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant also seeks sanctions. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 15, 2024, limited to the issue of sanctions against counsel. Defendant filed a reply on March 19, 2024, withdrawing the request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel.

Legal Standard

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 a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “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 [the motion], 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).)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (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. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

“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 sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On May 3, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One). (Castronovo Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff served objections and unverified responses on July 19, 2022. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. B.)

Defendant now moves to compel. The motion is in a sense a hybrid between a motion to compel initial responses and a motion to compel further responses. Substantive responses to interrogatories must be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) An unverified response is the equivalent of no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Objections need not be verified by the party (a signature by counsel is sufficient). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subds. (a), (c).)

There is no time limit on a motion to compel initial responses. There is a 45-day time limit on motions to compel further responses, but where, as here, there are both objections and unverified substantive responses, the 45-day time period does not begin to run until the verification of the responses is served. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136-137.) That has not occurred here. Thus, whether construed as a motion to compel initial responses or further responses, the motion is timely.

Defendant’s motion is also meritorious. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and Plaintiff has failed to provide a verified response to the interrogatories. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions (additional motions are scheduled for hearing later this week), the Court sets sanctions on the motion in the amount of $360.00, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney work, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $200 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Castronovo Decl., ¶ 11.)

No sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff’s counsel.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve verified, written, code compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $360 within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.