2016-00194995-CU-PO

Joanne Tuck vs. Aaron Jordon Caudillo

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Special 3) Production 4) Admissions

Filed By: Wood, Christopher W.

Plaintiff Joanne Tuck’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel defendant Aaron Jordon Caudillo (“Defendant”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on Defendant on February 9, 2018. After receiving a 30 day extension of time to respond, Defendant provided unverified responses on April 16, 2018. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff requested verifications from Defendant on April 25, 2018, and again on July 10, 2018. At the time this motion was filed, Plaintiff had not yet received verifications to Defendant’s discovery responses.

In opposition, Defendant’s counsel indicates the verifications were sent on July 16, 2018, subsequent to the filing date of this motion. Defendant’s counsel contends this motion is moot because the verifications have been provided. However, Plaintiff is still entitled to an order. Service of the verifications after the motion was made does not moot the motion. To be clear, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) At the time the motion was filed Defendant had not provided the verifications.

No later than August 20, 2018, Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Admissions, Set One. To the extent Defendant has already complied by serving verified responses, they need not re-serve such responses. The Court is not making any determination at this time regarding the adequacy of any responses that have been served.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was unopposed on the merits.