2018-00229490-CU-PO

Cameron Campbell vs. Arunious Gay

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Form 2. Special 3. Production

Filed By: Smith, Thomas H.

Defendant Arunious Gay’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production is GRANTED as follows.

This is a personal injury action arising from Plaintiff Cameron Campbell falling through a ramp leading into a box truck on Defendant’s property. On May 18, 2018, Defendant served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production (“RFPs”) on Plaintiff’s counsel. (Smith Decl. Exs. A, B., C.) On June 4, 2019 (over one year later), Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter, stating responses were due June 22, 2019. (Id. Ex. D.) On June 28, Plaintiff’s counsel served unverified response to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RFPs. (Id. Ex. E.) Further, many of the responses were left blank or were objections only. (Id.) On July 31, Defendant sent a second meet and confer letter, requesting verified substantive responses to the discovery requests. (Id. Ex. F.) Defendant has not received verified responses, and thus has filed this motion to compel. (Id. ¶8.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition, though does not substantively oppose the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the discovery was served on May 18, 2018, such that responses were due on June 22, 2018, yet the matter was dormant until June 4, 2019, nearly a year later. During that time, Plaintiff had moved to Nebraska and fell out of touch with Plaintiff’s original counsel, Michael Maloney, who had been handling the file in May 2018 and has since left the firm. Plaintiff’s firm has now made tentative contact with Plaintiff and is attempting to obtain verifications for the discovery responses. In the interim, Plaintiff has served amended substantive responses, and acknowledges that they are not complete until the verification is provided. (Serrano Decl. ¶¶2-13, Ex. A.)

On reply, Defendant asks that the Court still grant the motion, as the responses remain overdue and legally deficient.

The Court agrees, and Plaintiff appears to concede, that it has not served timely and legally adequate responses to the discovery. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Moreover, even if the responses were legally sufficient (which they are not), service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. Defendant is still entitled to an order. To be clear, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) At the time the motion was filed Plaintiff had not served responses.

The motion is accordingly GRANTED. Plaintiff is to serve verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RFPs, without objections, no later than October 4, 2019.

Sanctions are denied as the motion is substantively unopposed.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.