Case Number: BC628131 Hearing Date: April 18, 2018 Dept: 7

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO) AND FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); MOTIONS GRANTED

On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff Isaac Aftalion (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Stephen M. Buckley (“Defendant”), Stephen E. Buckley, and Lynette Buckley (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a December 18, 2014 automobile accident.

On August 18, 2017, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Robert J. Dwyer, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on September 23, 2017, but no responses were received. (Dwyer Decl., ¶ 4.) Defense counsel sent meet and confer and follow-up letters on October 5, October 18, October 23, 2017, and November 1, 2017, and received no response from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Dwyer Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6, 8.) On September 28, 2017, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff. Responses were due by November 1, 2017, but Plaintiff provided no responses. (Dwyer Decl., ¶ 3.) On November 17 and December 5, 2017, Defendant sent additional meet and confer and follow-up letters regarding the outstanding discovery. (Dwyer Decl., ¶¶ 10, 13, 15.)

On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension until December 31, 2017, which defense counsel granted as to “verified responses without objection.” (Dwyer Decl., ¶ 16.) On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff provided unverified responses with objections. (Dwyer Decl., ¶ 17.) After meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to provide responses without objections. (Dwyer Decl., ¶ 20.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses, with verifications and without objections, and to impose monetary sanctions.

However, these Motions should have been brought as Motions to compel responses, rather than compel further responses. It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1888) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

A party that fails to serve a timely response to discovery requests waives any objections to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (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.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed that Plaintiff served untimely, unverified responses. Therefore, any objections have been waived.

The Motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.

Further, monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally. Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the sum of $520.00 to defense counsel, for two hours preparing these unopposed Motions and attending the hearing, at counsel’s rate of $200.00 per hour, and $120.00 filing fees, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.