This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 31 July 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 1 August 2014, the motion of Petitioner CSAA Insurance Exchange to compel Respondents to respond to special interrogatories, set one, was argued and submitted.[1]

Respondents Estate of Hoc Nguyen and Thoa Nguyen filed formal opposition to the motion.[2]

Statement of Facts

Hoc Nguyen was riding a motorcycle when he struck a set of two ladders which were lighting and the number one laying of southbound US 101 and sand pose a period Mr. Newman and was ejected from his motorcycle and was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by Mr. Arbizu.  The owner of the ladders has never been identified.

Respondents commenced an uninsured motorists arbitration proceeding against Petitioner.  Petitioner contends that uninsured motorist benefits are not available in the absence of evidence to identify the owner or driver of the motor vehicle responsible for leaving the ladders on the freeway.

Discovery Dispute

Petitioner served its special interrogatories, set one, on 2 January 2014.  On 11 March 2014, Petitioner sent a “meet and confer” letter to counsel for Respondents requesting responses to the discovery.  Although no meet and confer is required for this motion, the parties are always encouraged to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.  (McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)

Analysis

No responses have been forthcoming.

In the opposition papers filed on 21 July 2014, counsel for Respondents states that “due to a calendaring error, their responses to Petitioner’s Special Interrogatory Requests, Set One, were not previously [sic] served.”  Counsel states that a copy of the response is attached to the opposition papers.  However, the responses appear to be unverified.  The Civil Discovery Act requires that responses to discovery be signed under oath by the party to whom the discovery is directed.  See Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030.250(a); 2031.250(a); 2033.240(a).  Unverified responses to are tantamount to no responses at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Order

The motion is GRANTED.  Respondents are ordered to provide code compliant responses to Petitioner’s first set of special interrogatories within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.