Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: BC685367, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC685367    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Date:                           2/16/23 (8:30 AM)                                           

Case:               Yvette Crayon v. Walter Gillies (BC685367)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Yvette Crayon’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Yvette Crayon moves to compel further responses from defendant STS Property Management, Inc. (“STS”) to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, Nos. 1.1, 2.11, 3.1- 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2 ,14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.l-16.10, and 50.1-50.6.

STS objected to the subject discovery as untimely due to the discovery cutoff. Trial was initially set for 6/13/22, not 12/27/22 as the parties contend. (6/16/21 Minute Order.) Under CCP § 2024.020(a), discovery closed 30 days before the day initially set for trial. Accordingly, the discovery cut-off date was 5/16/22. (CCP §12a [deadlines falling on Saturday moved to next court day].)

On 5/24/22, the trial was continued to 12/27/22. (5/24/22 Minute Order.) The 5/24/22 minute order did not state that discovery cutoff date was continued based on the new trial date. “Except as provided in Section 2024.050 [pertaining to a motion to reopen discovery], a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (CCP § 2024.020(b).)

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on 10/25/22, after discovery was cutoff. (Ohn Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) Accordingly, plaintiff did not have the right to serve the subject discovery on STS. STS was correct when it asserted objections based on CCP § 2024.020 in its responses.

However, on 12/12/22, pursuant to an ex parte application filed by STS, trial was continued to 5/8/23. The 12/12/22 minute order states: “All trial-related dates are pursuant to the new trial date.” (12/12/22 Minute Order.) “On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings…or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.” (CCP § 2024.050(a).) The reopening of discovery was not limited as to any one party.  Further, STS cites no authority for the proposition that the reopening of discovery does not serve to reopen discovery that was or would have been untimely if not for the reopening of discovery. (Opp. at 4:6-10.) Put simply, by obtaining the reopening of discovery, STS mooted its objection based on the discovery cutoff. The prior discovery cutoff no longer serves as a basis for STS to refuse to respond to the subject discovery on the basis of untimeliness.

STS also objected to the discovery because it purportedly was not served on the electronic service address of counsel for STS. On 10/25/22, plaintiff served the discovery on STS at david@charltonweeks.com and legal@charltonweeks.com. (Ohn Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) STS maintains that, on 10/21/22, it served a notice of electronic service address indicating that the appropriate email address to serve STS is electronicserviceaddress@charltonweeks.com. (Cooper Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 3.)

However, STS’s first filing in this action, the declaration of inability to meet and confer regarding demurrer and motion to strike filed on 10/21/22, which was served on plaintiff, has an email address of legal@charltonweeks.com on the first page. “An electronic service address is presumed valid for a party or other person if the party or other person files electronic documents with the court from that address and has not filed and served notice that the address is no longer valid.” (Rule of Court 2.251(g)(3).) While STS may have served notice that legal@charltonweeks.com was no longer valid, STS did not file any notice with the Court indicating that the legal@charltonweeks.com address is not valid. Indeed, STS’s most recent filings with the Court on 2/10/23 have the legal@charltonweeks.com address on the first page. STS’s objection based on a purportedly invalid electronic service is not well-taken.

Because STS failed to justify its objections to discovery, the motion is GRANTED. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant STS Property Management, Inc. is ordered to serve further verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, Nos. 1.1, 2.11, 3.1- 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2 ,14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.l-16.10, and 50.1-50.6.

All requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED. Because the motion is granted, STS’s request is denied. However, because the objection based on the discovery cutoff had merit at the time the responses were served, STS opposed this motion with substantial justification. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied.