Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV29472, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29472    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 29

Lerner v. Shahbazian
23STCV 29472

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Lerner to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Lerner to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One)

Tentative

The motions to compel are granted.

The requests for sanctions are denied.

Background

On December 4, 2023, Richard Lerner (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Raffi Shahbazian, Saltie Markarian (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on June 20, 2022.

On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On April 15, 2025, Defendants filed two discovery motions: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Lerner to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Lerner to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One).  Defendants also seek sanctions in each motion.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for November 11, 2025.

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 February 28, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Brown Decls. ¶ 2; Exhs. A.) Plaintiff served responses on July 29, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9; Exhs. G.)  Plaintiff’s responses, however, were unverified.

Discovery responses (other than those containing only objections) must be verified.  Unverified responses are the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, the motions to compel are granted.

As for sanctions, in the chapters of the Civil Discovery Act governing interrogatories and requests for production, the Legislature has authorized sanctions in the context of a motion to compel initial responses “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” the motion to compel.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff has not opposed the motions.  Accordingly, the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Richard Lerner to serve verified, code-complaint responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Richard Lerner to serve verified, code-complaint responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.