Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV22546, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV22546, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22546 Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 Dept: 29

Cohen v. White Glove Logistics
21STCV22546
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to Requests for Production (Set Three)

Tentative

The motions are granted. The request for sanctions are denied.

Background

On June 16, 2021, Laurie Cohen and Mark Cohen (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against White Gloves Logistics Inc. dba Luca’s Logistics, Waiel Luca Elbyr (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and conversion arising out of property damage in connection with a move on September 21, 2020.

On August 17, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On June 11 and 18, 2024, Defendants filed answers to the FAC.

On December 4, 2024, Defendants filed these two motions to compel.

No opposition has been filed.

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).)

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; 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., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

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 September 3, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiffs with Special Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Three). (Wilson Decls., ¶ 4; Exhs. B.) Plaintiffs served unverified responses on October 7, 2024, and Plaintiffs’ counsel (new counsel who recently substituted in) has been unresponsive to requests for verifications. (Id., ¶¶ 5, 7.)

Defendants move to compel responses. No opposition has been filed.

Responses to interrogatories and requests for production must be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250 & 2031.250.) Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. Accordingly, the motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied. In the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, sanctions may be awarded in connection with a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 & 2031.300.) Here, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Laurie Cohen and Mark Cohen to serve verified written responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set Two) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Laurie Cohen and Mark Cohen to serve verified written responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production (Set Three) within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.