Case Number: 18STCV08915 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

dongya hong,

Plaintiff,

v.

dewayne earl green-session,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18STCV08915

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel verifications of discovery responses

Plaintiff Dongya Hong (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Dewayne Earl Green-Session (“Defendant”) to provide a corrected verification to his responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). Defendant served a verification of his response to the FROG, but the verification does not include the place where Defendant executed the verification, and the verification includes an incorrect date. To be valid, a verification must include the responding party’s signature, and a statement that the response is under oath. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) A statement that a response is under oath must include the date and a statement that the response is true under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) As Defendant’s verification states that Defendant’s responses are true under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, Defendant need not state where he executed the verification. However, Defendant must state the date. Accordingly, Defendant’s verification is invalid. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Therefore, the motion is granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to provide a proper verification is an abuse of the discovery process. Although Defendant argues that a motion was not necessary, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff propounded discovery requests on May 2, 2019. (Declaration of Donald T. Dunham, ¶ 3.) The defective verification was served on August 27, 2018. (Id., ¶ 4.) The next day, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter demanding a properly verified response no later than September 9, 2019, and made clear that a motion would follow. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension to September 13, 2019. (Id., ¶ 6.) This motion was filed on September 26, 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff has afforded ample opportunity to resolve the issue, and the Court finds that this motion was necessary.

The Court orders sanctions against Defendant and his counsel-of-record, Kinkle, Rodiger & Springs, in the amount of $1,060. This amount is based upon four hours of attorney time at $250 per hour, plus a filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant is to serve a proper verifications of his responses to Plaintiff’s FROG within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant and his counsel of record, Kinkle, Rodiger & Springs, jointly and severally, are to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: October 31, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court