Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV30896, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30896    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carla Mayfield to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carla Mayfield to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Carla Mayfield to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are denied.

Background

On September 21, 2022, Carla Mayfield (“Plaintiff”) and Ebony Mayfield filed a complaint against Cheryl Johnson (“Defendant”), Ernest Johnson, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile accident occurring on May 7, 2021, at or near the intersection of West 54th Street and 11th Avenue in Los Angeles.  On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming Christina Jackson as Doe 1.

As is relevant to the matters on calendar for May 9, Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on November 18, 2022.  That included Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Lee Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.)  On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff served unverified, objection-only responses.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 2.)

On May 17, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses.

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).) Requests for admission may be propounded on a party without leave of court 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by that party, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020(b).)

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 November 18, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One).  (Lee Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1.)  Plaintiff responded, on January 24, 2023, by serving unverified, objection-only responses.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 2.)

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to the interrogatories (under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290) and initial responses to the document requests (under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300).  Defendant contends that unverified responses are the equivalent of no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632.)

It is true, of course, that substantive responses to discovery must be verified.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a) [responses to interrogatories] & 2031.250, subd. (a) [responses to document requests].  In that context, unverified responses are the equivalent of no responses at all.

But the Civil Discovery Act is very clear that objection-only responses need not be verified.  “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).)  “The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff served objection-only responses to the discovery.  The objection-only responses were signed by Plaintiff’s attorney, as is required.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (c) [& 2031.250, subd. (c). 

If, as appears to be the case, Defendant contends that the objections are without merit, Defendant’s remedy is (or was) to file a motion to compel further responses, after complying with all of the requirements for such a motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) & 2031.310, subd. (a).)  A motion to compel an initial response is not proper in these circumstances, as the responding party has already provided an initial response.

Accordingly, the motions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motions to compel.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.