Case Number: 17STLC02194 Hearing Date: May 01, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant Ashley Marie Tate’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rodriguez Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and to Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

On October 2, 2017, Plaintiffs Andre Saldana and Karen Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) filed this negligence action against Defendant Ashley Marie Tate (“Defendant”).

On November 2, 2017, Defendant served her Form Interrogatories on Rodriguez. (Motion, Exh. A.) On January 31, 2018, Rodriguez served her responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories. (Id., Exh. B.)

Defendant found Rodriguez’s response to her Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 to be inadequate and sent her a meet and confer letter on February 7, 2018. On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Rodriguez Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and to Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). In April 12, 2018, Rodriguez filed an opposition. On April 17, 2018, Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to [interrogatories], the [propounding party] may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that: ¶ An answer to a particular [request or interrogatory] is evasive or incomplete.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories or requests. (See Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

“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 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.” (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

Meet and Confer and 45-Day Requirement

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Id. § 2030.300(b).)

Notice of a motion to compel further responses to written discovery must be “given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing” or the moving party “waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Id. § 2030.300(c).)

Given that Defendant is only seeking to compel further only one request (No. 110.2) from her Form Interrogatories to Rodriguez, which Rodriguez had already agreed to produce in her response, the Court is satisfied with Defendant’s meet-and-confer effort as provided in her declaration as required by CCP § 2030.300(b). (See Motion, Exh. C.) The Court also finds that this Motion is timely filed under CCP § 2030.300(c).

Discussion

Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 requests:

“[T]he name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who examined or treated you for each injury or complaint, whether occurring before or after the INCIDENT, that involved the same part of your body claimed to have injured in the INCIDENT and the dates or examination or treatment.”

(Motion, Exh. A p. 3.)

Rodriguez responded to Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 stating: “Plaintiff is in the process of gathering the responsive documents and will supplement once they are available.” (Id., Exh. B p. 5.)

Defendant argues that Rodriguez’s response to Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 is inadequate and sought to obtain supplemental response from Rodriguez through her meet-and-confer letter but to no avail. (Motion, Migoya Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) In opposition, Rodriguez argues that she served her supplemental response to Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 on April 6, 2018. (Oppo., Exh. A.) In reply, Defendant contends that Rodriguez’s supplemental response is not verified, which is an equivalent of no response at all. (Reply p. 2.) The Court agrees.

Having reviewed the supplemental response submitted by Rodriguez (Oppo., Exh. A), the Court notes that the response does not contain a signed verification from Rodriguez. An unverified discovery response is treated as no response. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636-637.)

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Rodriguez is ordered to served verified supplemental response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories No. 110.2 within 20 days of Defendant serving notice of this Order.

Defendant requests that the Court impose $750 in monetary sanctions against Rodriguez and her counsel of record, Katherine Lipel (“Lipel”). (Notice of Motion p. 2.) Defendant requests an hourly rate of $150 for one (1) hour to draft this Motion and four (4) hours to prepare and appear for the hearing of this Motion. (Migoya Decl. ¶ 9.)

Because the Motion has been granted, the Court must impose monetary sanctions against Rodriguez and her counsel Lipel under CCP § 2030.300(d). Given the simplicity of this Motion, the Court finds that that one (1) hour to draft this Motion and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing for the Motion, at a reasonable rate of $150 per hour to be sufficient to compensate Defendant. Therefore, the Court awards Defendant $300 in monetary sanctions against Rodriguez and her Counsel Lipel, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of serving notice of this Order by Defendant.

Moving party to give notice.