Sunita Vora, et al. v. Sunnyvale Gardens Post Acute, et al.

But, despite repeated requests from Plaintiff’s counsel, HCR Manorcare never provided a verification for these Responses. Sawyer Decl. at ¶¶13, 20.

This failure by HCR Manorcare to provide a verification to these Responses is a serious and sanctionable discovery violation because where, as here, a verification is required: “an unverified response is ineffective; it is the equivalent of no response at all.” California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at ¶ 8:1113 (emphasis added)

6 Hereinafter, the “Responses.”

(2002 The Rutter Group) (citing Appleton v. Supr. Ct. (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636. No response at all means that HCR failed to serve a timely response.

And by the plain text of Section 2030.290(a), HCR Manorcare’s failure to serve a timely response means that HCR Manorcare “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030/230, as well as any objections to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” C.C.P. § 2030.290(a) (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Court finds that neither of the conditions set forth Section 2030.290(a)(1) & (2), which might otherwise excuse HCR Manorcare are met here. HCR Manorcare has never served a verified response to these Form Interrogatories, so HCR Manorcare has not subsequently served a response that is in “substantial compliance[.]” C.C.P. § 2030.290(a)(1). And HCR Manorcare’s Opposition fails to establish that its failure to serve a timely response was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” C.C.P. § 2030.290(a)(2).

The Opposition argues that HCR Manorcare should not have to provide a verification because it “has not been in business since January 31, 2024, and there are no remaining employees.” Opposition at 3:10-11. But that’s not a good excuse to fail to comply with the verification requirement because in the case of this corporate entity Section 2030.250(b) expressly allows the HCR Manorcare’s attorney Alexa Magrath to sign the verification on its behalf, provided that the verification states pursuant to Section 2030.250(b) that:

1. Alexa Magrath as the signer is the authorized agent of HCR Manorcare to sign this verification for these Responses; and

2. Alexa Magrath waives any lawyer-client privilege and any protection for work protection during any subsequent discovery from attorney Alexa Magrath concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in these Responses.

C.C.P. § 2030.250(b).

And reading Sections 2030.250(b) and 2030.290(a) together in harmony, the Court sees no prejudice or unfairness in this particular case of having Alexa Magrath waive attorney-client privilege for a verification of these Responses of behalf of this corporate entity under Section 2030.250(b) because HRC Manorcare has already waived the attorney-client privilege for these Responses under 2030.290(a) by failing to serve a timely response.

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction now, the Court finds that HCR Manorcare committed a “misuse of the discovery process” under Section 2023.010(d); i.e., by failing to provide the required verification, HCR Manorcare failed to respond at all to the Form Interrogatories. And because HCR Manorcare violated Section 2023.010(d), the Court has authority and discretion to impose a reasonable monetary

sanction against it under Section 2023.030(a): “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) (emphasis added). But how much is reasonable for this particular discovery Motion is within the Court’s broad discretion.

Here, for a monetary sanction Plaintiff requests that the Court award $3,600.00 against HCR Manorcare for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees for this Motion, specifically for six hours (!) at a rate of $600.00 per hour. Sawyer Declaration at ¶ 22. In light of the relevant market, the Court finds that the billable rate sought of $600.00 is reasonable. But this Motion did not reasonably take anywhere near 6.0 hours. All Plaintiff had to do to win this Motion is point out that (a) Plaintiff served the Form Interrogatories, Set One, on HCR Manorcare (it did); (b) HCR Manorcare is required by California law to provide verified responses (it is); and (c) HCR Manorcare never provided a verification (it never did). The Court finds that reasonably should have taken 1.0 hour total to draft and argue.

Hence, for a monetary sanction, the Court awards Plaintiff a total of $600.00, which equals reasonable attorneys’ fees of $600.00 (= 1.0 hour x $600.00 per hour). The Court further Orders that HCR Manorcare pay Plaintiff this monetary sanction of $600.00 within 30 days from today.

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Specifically the Court ORDERS that:

1. Within 30 days from today, HCR Manorcare will provide to Plaintiff verified, objection-free responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One; and 2. Within 30 days from today, HCR Manorcare will pay Plaintiff a monetary sanction of $600.00 total for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the Motion.

Moreover, HCR Manorcare is put on NOTICE that failure to comply with this Order within 30 days from today may result in further escalating monetary sanctions against it, plus nonmonetary sanctions including issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.7

SO ORDERED.

7 Given this ruling, the Court expects the parties to meet and confer and resolve—

without the need for further Court intervention—HCR ManorCare’s responses to the remaining discovery requests in Set One.

Date: May 29, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

20