Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV03144, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03144    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO: (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES-CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION; AND

(2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date:               5/4/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               The Unicon Group, Inc. v. CalAsia Construction, Inc. et al. (22STCV03144)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Complainant Workshop Kitchen & Bar LLC’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One is DENIED.

Cross-Complainant Workshop Kitchen & Bar LLC’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Cross-complainant Workshop Kitchen & Bar LLC (“Workshop”) moves for further responses from cross-defendant CalAsia Construction, Inc. (“CalAsia”) to Form Interrogatories - Construction Litigation, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

On June 24, 2022, Workshop served Form Interrogatories – Construction Litigation, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on CalAsia by mail and email. (Mass Supp. Decls. ¶¶ 3 & Ex. A.) Pursuant to the agreement of Workshop, the deadline to serve responses was October 11, 2022. (DeRose Decls. ¶¶ 3 & Ex. B [two-week extension granted on 9/27/22, i.e. 10/11/22]; CCP §§ 2030.270(a-b), 2031.270(a-b) [parties may agree to extension of time to respond].) On October 11, 2022, CalAsia responded to the subject discovery by serving objections. (Mass Supp. Decls. ¶¶ 5 & Ex. B.) Accordingly, CalAsia’s objections were timely. Workshop was thus required to comply with CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310 in moving to compel further responses. (Cf. CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300 [motion to compel responses when responding party fails to serve timely responses].)

The motions fail for the following reasons:

Workshop did not file separate statements, as required for motions to compel further responses under Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(2) and 3.1345(a)(3). The Court has the discretion to deny a discovery motion based on violations of Rules of Court. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892.) The Court exercises such discretion here because Workshop does not set forth the factual and legal reasons why further responses, answers, and production are required anywhere in the moving papers. (See Rule of Court 3.1345(c)(3).) Workshop does not explain why CalAsia’s objections are without merit. Moreover, Workshop’s declarations do not evidence any attempt to meet and confer concerning the merit of CalAsia’s objections. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2016.040 [“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion”].) Further, with respect to the Requests for Production, Workshop does not set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” as required by CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).

Accordingly, because moving party Workshop Kitchen & Bar LLC fails to make any showing as to how CalAsia’s objections are improper and/or why further responses are required—either in a Separate Statement or anywhere else in the moving papers and declarations in support thereof—the motions are DENIED.