Leach v. Superior Court
111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 169 Cal. Rptr. 42, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2416 (1980)
Rule of Law:
When a party completely fails to respond to interrogatories within the statutory time, they waive any right to object, and the moving party is not required to comply with California Rule of Court 222.1's meet-and-confer requirement before filing a motion to compel answers.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and defendants were involved in an underlying quiet title action in superior court.
- The quiet title action was set for trial on October 2, 1980, with discovery remaining open until 30 days prior to trial.
- On June 3, 1980, defendants served interrogatories on plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs neither answered nor objected to the interrogatories within the statutory time (30 days) nor sought or received an extension of time.
- After the statutory response time expired, defendants' counsel sent a letter on July 9, 1980, advising plaintiffs' counsel that a motion to compel answers would be filed if no responses were received within five days.
- Plaintiffs again failed to respond to the interrogatories following the July 9th letter.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants, in an underlying quiet title action, served interrogatories on plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs failed to respond to the interrogatories within the statutory time.
- Defendants filed a motion to compel answers and for sanctions in the superior court (trial court).
- Plaintiffs opposed the motion at the hearing, arguing that defendants failed to comply with California Rule of Court 222.1.
- The superior court denied defendants' motion, citing defendants' failure to comply with Rule 222.1.
- Defendants (as petitioners) filed an application for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal.
- Plaintiffs (as real parties in interest) filed a verified return to the application for the writ of mandate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Rule of Court 222.1, which mandates a reasonable attempt to resolve objections and disputed issues, apply as a prerequisite to a motion to compel answers when the responding party has completely failed to provide any response to interrogatories within the statutory period?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No, California Rule of Court 222.1 does not apply when a party has completely failed to respond to interrogatories within the statutory time. The court held that under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, subdivision (a), a party's failure to object to interrogatories within 30 days constitutes a waiver of any right to object. Plaintiffs' interpretation of Rule 222.1, which would allow objections even after a default in responding, would render the rule inconsistent with the controlling statute. Rules of court cannot be inconsistent with statute, as the Judicial Council's power to make rules is limited to those 'not inconsistent with statute.' Since objections are waived by total non-response, there are no 'objections and disputed issues' for counsel to resolve under Rule 222.1. Therefore, compliance with Rule 222.1 is not a prerequisite to a motion to compel answers when there has been no response at all. The trial court's denial of defendants' motion based on non-compliance with Rule 222.1 was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interplay between statutory discovery waiver rules and court-mandated meet-and-confer requirements. It establishes that procedural rules, like Rule 222.1, cannot override or contradict substantive statutory provisions, such as the automatic waiver of objections for failure to respond to discovery. This decision provides critical guidance for practitioners by delineating when a good faith effort to resolve disputes is necessary versus when a direct motion to compel is appropriate, particularly in cases of total non-compliance. It reinforces the principle that parties cannot use a technical procedural rule to shield themselves from sanctions for outright disregard of discovery obligations, thereby promoting more efficient and fair discovery practices.
