In superior court cases in Sonoma County California must responses to Form Interrogatories be verified by either the attorney or the party? Attorneys shall sign the responses with objections but does that same attorney have to sign a verification under oath? If the attorney does not sign under oath must the corporate officer of the party sign under oath? Without a verification are the responses valid? Is the statement " no verification" no response a true and correct statement in California based on case law or false based on California Code of Civil Procedure
Yes, responses to form interrogatories must be verified by the responding party (not the attorney representing the responding party).
Any officer or agent of the corporation can sign the corporate verification. It does not have to be the president. It can also be a manager or other employee with personal knowledge of the facts relating to the case.
Relating to interrogatories, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250 provides as follows:
" (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.
(b) If that party is a public or private corporation, or a partnership, association, or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party. If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that party is an attorney acting in that capacity for the party, that party waives any lawyer-client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) during any subsequent discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in the response.
(c)The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection."
If the responding party is out of the county and not available to sign the verification, the attorney from the law firm representing the responding party can sign the verification, but this is very risky because it opens up the attorney-client privilege.
The responses without a verification are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (1988) ; Zorro Investment Company v. Great Pacific Securities Corporation 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914 (1977).
Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice for a particular case. This Avvo.com posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, please consult with your own attorney.
Answers to discovery must be verified by the party responding. A lawyer is not required to verify anything. I think that at better statement would be, "no verification, defective response". Often it is a clerical error easiliy remedied.
The above is general legal and business analysis. It is not "legal advice" but analysis, and different lawyers may analyse this matter differently, especially if there are additional facts not reflected in the question. I am not your attorney until retained by a written retainer agreement signed by both of us. I am only licensed in California. See also avvo.com terms and conditions item 9, incorporated as if it was reprinted here.