Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV18234, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18234 Hearing Date: October 23, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
Background
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 8, 2019. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff Veronica Sung Ok Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Frank Thomas (“Thomas”), State Farm, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, (3) specific performance, (4) breach of contractual duty to pay a covered claim, and (5) breach of the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, Thomas was an uninsured or underinsured motorist and State Farm has failed to pay the amounts due to Plaintiff under her uninsured motorist coverage policy. (Complaint, ¶¶ 51-79.)
On October 4, 2022, the Court entered an order, based upon the stipulation of Plaintiff and Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), for arbitration of the dispute between Plaintiff and State Farm. For a variety of reasons that are not directly before the Court in connection with the motion, the arbitration remains pending.
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff served State Farm with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). (Bakhsheshian Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. 1.) State Farm served responses, including both objections and substantive responses, on April 13. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exh. 2.) No verification was provided. (Ibid.) Following correspondence between counsel, State Farm has still not provided a verification. (Id., ¶ 11.)
On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant two motions, seeking orders compelling State Farm to verify its responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.
State Farm has not filed an opposition to the motions.
Legal Standard
A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) The response must be verified. (Id., § 2030.250.) An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)
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).) The response must be verified. (Id., § 2031.250.) An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
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., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”¿ (Id. at pp. 408-409.)¿ This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”¿ (Id. at p. 408.)¿ If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”¿ (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Discussion
Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking orders compelling State Farm to provide verifications to its responses to the Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.
Although the uninsured motorist policy claim is subject to arbitration, the Superior Court has the exclusive power and authority to hear and resolve discovery disputes. (Ins. Code § 11580.2, subd. (f); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4tha 913, 920-927.)
Plaintiff has presented evidence that she properly served State Farm with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); that State Farm served responses that included substantive responses and objections; and that State Farm never provided a verification of the substantive responses. (Bakhsheshian Decl., ¶¶ 6-7 & Exhs. 1-2.)
Plaintiff need show nothing more. Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling State Farm to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in part. State Farm did not oppose the motion, and there is no evidence that State Farm’s conduct was substantially justified or that it would be unjust to impose sanctions against State Farm. Because of the relatively straightforward nature of the motions, and the economies of scale associated with preparing parallel motions in a single case, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $817.90 per motion, calculated based upon 1.5 hours of attorney time per motion, multiplied by a reasonable billing rate for a motion of this nature of $500 per hour, plus $67.90 in costs. (See Bakhsheshian Decl., ¶ 13.)
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.
The Court ORDERS State Farm to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within 15 days of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS State Farm to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,635.80 ($817.90 per motion, multiplied by two motions) within 15 days of notice of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.