2016-00199561-CU-BT

Julie A. Poletti vs. Stephanie L. Williams

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Blake, Kristin N.

Defendants Stephanie Williams, et al.’s motion to compel self-represented Plaintiff Julie Poletti to respond to form interrogatories and requests for production is granted.

Plaintiff filed a declaration that indicates that she was not able to timely respond to Defendants’ discovery due to “legal and medical issues.” She states that she has cleared up the situation and has started the process of working on responses. She does not request that the motion be denied but asks for a 150 day extension to respond. The Court would note that the declaration is not filed under penalty of perjury as required by CCP § 2015.5.

Here, the Court must note that Plaintiff as a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.) This includes timely responding to discovery and executing declarations under penalty of perjury.

While the Court understands that Plaintiff may have had some issues responding to the discovery, the Court will not grant her a 150 day extension to respond. The subject discovery was served on October 3, 2017 and responses were due on November 7, 2017. (CCP §§ 2030.260, 2031.260.) Plaintiff has now had over 5 months in which to

respond to the discovery. The Court will not grant Plaintiff another 5 months.

As a result, no later than April 20, 2018, Plaintiff Julie Poletti shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ form interrogatories (set one) and request for production (set one).

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied as the motion essentially unopposed on the merits. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352,

355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d

481.

Even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s declaration to be an opposition, it would still deny Defendants’ request for sanctions as it finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.