Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV30970, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30970    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 45

SALINAS V. VAN BERG

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Date of Hearing:          February 24, 2025                   Trial Date:       October 27, 2025

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         23STCV30970

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Roberto Salinas

Responding Party:       None

BACKGROUND

            On December 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Roberto Salinas and Ivania Salinas filed a complaint against Defendants Tia Van Berg, Tia Van Berg as Trustee of the 15 Group Trust of 2021 dated August 23, 2021, and Does 1-10, inclusive alleging (1) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Tort); (2) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Statute); (3) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Contract); (4) Private Nuisance (Civil Code section 3479); (5) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (6) Declaratory Relief; (7) Unlawful Collection of Rent and Excessive Collection of Rent; (8) Failure to Pay Relocation Assistance (Violation of LAMC §§ 151.00, et seq.); and (9) Unlawful Business Practices in violation of BP § 17200 et seq.

            On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff Roberto Salinas filed a motion to compel responses to form interrogatories. To date, no opposition has been filed.

[Tentative] Ruling

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2033.280(a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

ANALYSIS

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite multiple extensions and follow-ups. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Form Interrogatories on April 3, 2024, with responses initially due August 1, 2024. (Franco Decl. ¶2.) Plaintiff granted two extensions, making the final deadline September 11, 2024, but Defendant still failed to respond. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Subsequent attempts to obtain responses, including email correspondence and warnings of motions to compel, were ignored. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Under California law (CCP §2030.260(a)), responses to discovery must be served within 30 days, and when no objections are raised within the statutory period, the propounding party may move to compel without a meet and confer. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide responses without objections under CCP §§2030.010 and 2030.290. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has waived any objections, including privilege and work product protections, due to untimely responses.

Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions under CCP §§2023.030 and 2030.290, arguing that the court must impose sanctions against a party that fails to respond to discovery without substantial justification. Plaintiff emphasizes that sanctions can be imposed even if Defendant does not oppose the motion or eventually complies after its filing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a).)

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories as Defendant has failed to provide timely responses despite multiple extensions and follow-ups, waiving any objections, including those based on privilege or work product protection.

Additionally, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant for failure to comply with discovery obligations without substantial justification. Defendant’s continued noncompliance has necessitated this motion, warranting sanctions.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $550 and anticipates 1.21 hours on this motion for a total of $720, including the $60 filing fee. The Court finds this request to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendant is ordered to provide full and verified responses within 10 days of this order and pay the monetary sanctions in the amount of $720, payable by defendant within 30 days.