Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV42312, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42312    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff Sean Rashti (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Toby Wank (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set two, on March 2, 2022.  Following multiple continuances, Plaintiff set the motion for hearing on September 16, 2022.  (Notice filed July 1, 2022.)  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) concerning the subject discovery was set for August 23, 2022.  However, there was no appearance or contact by Plaintiff at the IDC.  The IDC was held and the Court ordered the instant motion to be heard as scheduled. 

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

CCP § 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:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

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

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

“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.”  (CCP § 2031.310(c).) 

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set two.  Plaintiff asserts the RPDs were propounded on Defendant on February 19, 2021, and Defendant responded with objections to the requests on March 23, 2021. 

            As Defendant asserts in the opposition, Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with the motion to compel further responses as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(3).  This defect is further compounded by the fact that Plaintiff did not attach the RPDs at issue to Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff does not otherwise specifically identify the requests at issue.  Admittedly, this alone is a sufficient basis to deny Plaintiff’s motion.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892.) 

            Nevertheless, the motion is further denied on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to bring the motion within 45 days of receiving Defendant’s responses.  The 45-day limitation to move to compel further responses is jurisdictional, and courts are without authority to rule on untimely motions to compel except to deny them.  (See, e.g., Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; and Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 746 [later motion did not relate back to earlier motion taken off calendar].)  The 45–day deadline runs from the date the response is served, not from the date originally set for production or inspection.  (See CCP §2033.2900(c); Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.) 

            Plaintiff attests Plaintiff received Defendant’s responses on March 23, 2021, but Plaintiff did not file this motion until March 2, 2022, nearly one year after the deadline for Plaintiff to move to compel further responses to the RPDs.  Notably, in the reply to Defendant’s opposition Plaintiff filed on August 30, 2022, Plaintiff did not dispute any of the contentions made by Defendant, including that the motion was untimely filed.  Plaintiff only argued that sanctions against Plaintiff are unwarranted. 

            Therefore, by failing to timely move to compel further responses, Plaintiff waived any right to compel further responses to the RPDs.  (Sexton, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1409 [“the 45–day time limitation was mandatory and jurisdictional [Citation] and … ‘the Legislature has explicitly stated that unless a party moves to compel further response within 45 days of the unsatisfactory response, he waives any right to compel a further response.’ ”]; see also Prof'l Career Colleges, Magna Inst. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493-94 [The Civil Discovery Act's “pattern of restrictions, sanctions, and the attempt to force cooperation clearly evinces the legislative intent that discovery proceed not only smoothly, but swiftly as well.”].) 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set two, is denied.

            Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP § 2031.310(h).)  Defendant is awarded one hour for preparing the opposition and one hour for appearing at the hearing on this motion all at the reasonable rate of $160.17.  Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff, who is in pro per.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $320.34, within twenty days.       

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 16^th day of September 2022