Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV04401, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04401    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Claudia V. Gonzalez Ruiz, Carolina G. Ruiz (“Carolina Ruiz”), and Diana Gonzalez Ruiz (“Diana Ruiz”) filed this action on February 3, 2021, against Defendant Neomie F. Hernandez, an individual, and dba Exclusive Tax Service.

On March 26, 2021, Neomie F. Hernandez dba Exclusive Tax Service (“Hernandez”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Claudia V. Gonzalez Ruiz, an individual and dba United Income Tax Services, Carolina Ruiz, and Diana Ruiz.

On March 9, 2022, Hernandez served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on Carolina Ruiz. (Willoughby Decl., ¶¶ 3-6, p. 1, Exs. A-B.) On April 11, 2022, Carolina Ruiz served responses to Hernandez’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, which consisted solely of objections. (Willoughby Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, p. 2, Exs. C-D.) The responses were not verified. (Willoughby Decl., ¶ 10, p. 1.)

On January 26, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference.

Hernandez now moves for “an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, served on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant on March 9, 2022.” Hernandez also moves “for an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant on March 9, 2022.” Carolina Ruiz opposes.

Discussion

In the motion to compel responses to Hernandez’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Hernandez cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a)¿ permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)¿.) A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)¿.) 

In the motion to compel responses to Hernandez’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Hernandez cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. Pursuant to this provision, a propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) 

Although Hernandez cites to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, she appears to assert that the instant motions are motions to compel responses, as opposed to motions to compel further responses. Hernandez asserts that “where the Defendant serves responses, but those responses are unverified, then a motion to compel discovery responses is the proper motion because unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Mots. at pp. 3:17-20.) Hernandez cites to Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”

However, as noted by Carolina Ruiz, verifications are not required for responses that consist entirely of objections. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250, subdivision (a), “[t]he 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.” In addition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250, subdivision (c), “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” Further, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250, subdivision (a), “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250, subdivision (c), “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.”

As noted by Carolina Ruiz, in Appleton, the responses contained a fact-specific answer. (See Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 633-634, “Appleton served upon Cook a set of three requests for admission which referred to allegations of the first amended complaint. Because of an intervening amendment to the complaint, Cook objected but did provide a single purported answer to all three requests. However, this response was not verified.”)

Thus, the Court finds that the appropriate motion here is a motion to compel further responses, as Carolina Ruiz served responses to Hernandez’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One consisting solely of objections. To the extent Hernandez is asserting that the instant motions are motions to compel further responses, Hernandez has not complied with multiple requirements associated with such motions. For instance, Hernandez’s counsel’s declaration in support of both motions does not demonstrate that Hernandez attempted to meet and confer with Carolina Ruiz in advance of filing the instant motions. (See Willoughby Decl., see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

Carolina Ruiz asserts that sanctions should be awarded against Hernandez and her attorney. Carolina Ruiz cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), which provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (j), 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 further response to a demand, 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.” Carolina Ruiz also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), which provides that “[t]he 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.”

However, as discussed above, the instant motions appear to be motions to compel responses, not motions to compel further responses. Thus, the Court does not find that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310 and 2030.300.

Carolina Ruiz also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, which provides, inter alia, “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Carolina Ruiz indicates that her counsel determined that the instant motions had no merit, and that on December 20, 2022, he requested that Hernandez’s counsel withdraw the motions. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Carolina Ruiz’s counsel also indicates that he sent Hernandez’s counsel “code sections that support [his] client’s position that the responses containing objections only did not need to be verified by the responding party,” but Hernandez’s counsel still refused to withdraw the motions. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10.) Carolina Ruiz contends that Hernandez’s counsel refused to withdraw the motions even when he knew they did not have merit. However, based on a consideration of the foregoing, it appears there was confusion on Hernandez’s part regarding the applicable Code of Civil Procedure requirements, not an intentional misuse of the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions against Hernandez.

The Court also denies Hernandez’s requests for sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Hernandez’s motions are denied. The Court denies the parties’ requests for sanctions.

Carolina Ruiz is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  March 23, 2023                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court