Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV44023, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

 



 




Case Number: 20STCV44023    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 74

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

 

 

JAMES TULETTE ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

CITY of el segundo , et al.,

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

20STCV44023

 

 

Hearing Date:

February 17, 2023

 

 

Time:

8:30 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT City of el segundo TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTs FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff James Tulette

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       City of El Segundo

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents from Defendant City of El Segundo to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

 

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff James Tulette filed this action on November 17, 2020, against Defendants City of El Segundo (“City”) and Fire Chief Chris Donovan (“Donovan”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and age discrimination in violation of the FEHA.

            On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three (“RFP”) on City. (Schelly Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) City served responses on December 2, 2022. (Schelly Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff found the responses deficient and attempted to meet and confer regarding City’s responses. (Schelly Decl., ¶ 6.) The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. (Ibid.) 

            Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to RFP Nos. 75, 76, 77, 80, and 86.

LEGAL STANDARD

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Under Code of Civil Procedure 2024.020, “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Trial was initially set for February 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed his motion to compel more than thirty days before trial, but it was set to be heard three days after trial was set to begin. In his reply, Plaintiff argues that court should nevertheless rule on the merits of his motion because trial has been continued to July 31, 2023. (Reply at pg. 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiff reasons that, because the court has the authority to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050, it is possible for it to adjudicate this motion. (Reply at pp. 2-3.) When the court continued the February 14 trial date, the court explicitly ordered that discovery cut-off dates did move with the new trial date. (See January 18, 2023 Minute Order.) If Plaintiff concludes additional discovery remains necessary, he may file a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050 to reopen discovery.

            CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses.

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply is moot.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  February 17, 2023

 

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court