Order to show cause re: dismissal/sanctions
8. CU0002143 Joan Donaldson vs. Albertsons Companies, Inc. et al
Plaintiff Joan Donaldson’s motion to compel Defendant Safeway Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Safeway”) initial responses to her Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SIs”) is granted in part and denied as moot in part. Plaintiff’s motion to compel initial responses to her Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”) from Safeway is granted in part and denied as moot in part. Defendant is ordered to provide verifications to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, within ten (10) days of service of the Notice of Entry of Order stemming from this hearing. Defendant shall pay $1,935.00 in court-ordered sanctions within ten (10) calendar days of service of the Notice of Entry of this Order.
Special Interrogatories
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906. Moreover, “[w]here no objections have been made within the statutorily permitted time, they are deemed waived.” Id. Unverified responses are “tantamount to no response at all”. Appleton v. Superior Court (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.
Here, Plaintiff propounded her SIs, Set One on Defendant via email to Safeway’s counsel on September 12, 2025. Porat Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A. Defendant’s responses to these discovery demands were originally due by October 14, 2025. Id. Defendant requested, and Plaintiff granted, two extensions, making the SIs due on November 7, 2025, but Safeway failed to serve any responses by that date. Porat Decl., ¶¶ 4-5. After meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff extended the deadline for responses to Plaintiff’s SIs to December 1, 2025.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Porat Decl., ¶ 14. Defendant’s counsel declares it served responses and verifications on November 17, 2025, but subsequently discovered the responses were to a withdrawn set of Special Interrogatories. Norris Decl., ¶ 13. Defendant’s counsel states she subsequently attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to clear up any misunderstanding and served amended responses to the revised Special Interrogatories, Set One on January 8, 2026. Norris Decl., ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges receiving responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, but declares no verifications have been served.
Reply Br., 2:27-3:1. Therefore, an order compelling verifications is warranted.
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c). The amount of sanctions awarded centers on two main principles: causation, and reasonableness. See Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC. V. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 771. First, monetary sanctions may only be imposed based on attorney’s fees and costs incurred “as a result” of the
7