I have a couple discovery questions.
Respondent (your's truly) propounded interrogatories on date X by mail. Allowing 5 days for service by mail and CA FC §2030.260 (a), which reads "Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party ...", I would expect a response in my hands no later than date X + 35 days.
On date X + 36 I faxed to Petitioner's counsel a demand for receipt of complete and verified responses no later than a specified time 6 days later (when we would be meeting in court on another matter) or I would be filing a motion to compel discovery. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner's counsel's legal assistant telephoned that the response had been mailed the previous day.
Several days later, an unverified set of responses and objections arrived, signed only by Petitioner's counsel and with an unsigned proof of service by mail indicating that Petitioner's counsel had mailed the document.
My deadline for receipt of verified responses has passed and Petitioner has completely ignored my demand.
1) Am I correct that Responding Party must allow 5 days deducted from their 30 day response time if they choose to serve responses by mail? i.e. rather than to mail the documents on the last day.
2) Is an unverified response received after the statutory deadline considered no response? CA FC §2030.210 (a) states that "The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing UNDER OATH [emphasis mine] ...".
3) In filing a motion to compel discovery, should one write out the full responses that were received, including objections, even though they were received late, and notwithstanding CA FC §2030.290 (a) which reads "The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4"?
My take on things is that Petitioner did not timely and did not properly serve verified (under oath) responses to my interrogatories as required by law and has thus waived objections even though objections were asserted by Petitioner's counsel in the late, unverified responses that were delivered.
Am I wrong?