Lawzilla Update: It is our understanding in the final ruling sanctions were only ordered against plaintiff and not her counsel.

Case Number: BC669441 Hearing Date: July 26, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY; MOTIONS GRANTED

This action arises out of a July 23, 2015 slip and fall incident. On November 8, 2017, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Defendant”) served Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff Sheryl Kelley (“Plaintiff”). (Declaration of Delmas A. Woods, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested and was granted three extensions on responses. (Woods Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.) On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff served unverified responses. (Woods Decl., ¶ 9.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter, but no verified responses have been served. (Woods Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses without objection and to impose monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones 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.)

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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states communication has been extremely difficult with Plaintiff, due primarily to the fact that she is without a home. Plaintiff never signed the verification forms for the discovery responses she completed earlier with the assistance of counsel. After Plaintiff’s counsel’s office experienced some staff turnover, there was nobody specifically monitoring the completion of the verification forms for the already completed discovery responses. Plaintiff argues Defendant made no meet and confer efforts since March 2018 to obtain verifications and the filing of these motions “feels like a trap.”

In Reply, defense counsel argues it made many informal attempts to obtain verifications and it should not have to wait indefinitely for verifications. Defense counsel characterizes Plaintiff’s conduct as a willful failure to respond to discovery and argues sanctions should be imposed.

The Court finds that Defendant had no obligation to meet and confer, as unverified responses are tantamount to no responses, and there is no meet and confer requirement where no responses have been served. Despite this, defense counsel, having already granted multiple extensions on discovery, continued to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel before filing these motions.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff has failed, and as of the date of her Opposition, has still failed to provide verifications for discovery. That Plaintiff is without a home and has had difficulty communicating with counsel does not mean she is excused from the discovery obligations that follow the filing of this suit.

In light of the foregoing, the Motions to compel verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s written discovery requests is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without object to Defendant within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

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).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $860.00 for four hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $180.00 filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.