Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 20STCV49330, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Plaintiff Ruslana Kozmech (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Hughes Markets, Inc. dba Ralphs (“Defendant”). Defendant opposes.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:¿

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.¿

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)¿¿The Court lacks jurisdiction if the motion is filed after this time period. ¿(Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

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 further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 (h).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant on September 1, 2023. (McElfish Decl., Exh. A.) On November 27, 2023, Defendant served initial responses. (McElfish Decl., Exh. B.) On January 26, 2024, Defendant served further responses. (McElfish Decl., Exh D.) On February 7, 2024, Defendant served verifications to the further responses via email. (McElfish Decl., Exh. F.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

If a discovery set has a mix of responses and objections, the 45 days for a motion to compel further begins running once the verifications are served (even if the discovery at issue are purely objections). (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136 [discussing the 45-day time period for motions to compel further interrogatories under section 2030.300].) If served electronically, the deadline is increased by two court days. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6(a)(3), 2016.050.)

Therefore, this motion needed to be filed by March 26, 2024 (45 days after the verification on February 7, 2024, plus two court days). Because the motion was filed on March 26, 2024, it is timely.[1]

In Defendant’s opposition, it appears that the parties have subsequently met and conferred and possibly resolved the issues. To the extent that the issues are not resolved, the parties are ordered to prepare a joint status report, indicating which specific discovery requests remain in dispute, and the parties’ respective positions regarding the request. The joint status report must be filed with the Court 5 days in advance of a continued IDC, with a courtesy copy delivered to the Court by 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff, as the moving party, is to file the joint status report.

The hearing on the motion to compel further discovery responses is continued to August 12, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The matter is set for an informal discovery conference on July 29, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All counsel are ordered to appear personally.

[1] At the IDC, the Court relied on the dates provided by Defendant in its IDC statement. Plaintiff did not provide any argument regarding the Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff further did not file a reply. Nonetheless, the Court has independently reviewed the record and the motion appears timely.

DEPT:	32
HEARING DATE:	July 2, 2024
CASE NUMBER:	20STCV49330
MOTIONS:	Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
MOVING PARTY:	Plaintiff Ruslana Kozmech
OPPOSING PARTY:	Defendant Hughes Markets, Inc.