Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV41020, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV41020    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action against Defendant Luis Diaz Rojas stemming from an alleged sexual assault.  

            On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set Eight). Defendant filed his opposition on October 30, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 5, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).) The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

For SROG Nos. 7-12, 15, 16, and 18, Defendant objected and then answered with responsive information. (Plntf.’s Ex. A, B.) Defendant is entitled to assert objections to preserve them while providing a substantive response. Defendant properly objected to SROG Nos. 1-6, 13, 14, and 17 as irrelevant, vague, and seeking attorney work product. (Ibid.)    

Plaintiff’s motion does not address the RFPs, but in any event, Defendant responded to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 by stating that he has never possessed the documents requested. (Plntf.’s Ex. B.) Thus, Defendant has sufficiently responded to the RFPs.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action against Defendant Luis Diaz Rojas stemming from an alleged sexual assault.

            On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue the trial date. Defendant filed his opposition on October 28, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 5, 2024.  

LEGAL STANDARD

            “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(a).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

            The current trial date is January 28, 2025. Plaintiff moves to continue the trial by at least one year, to January 2026. Plaintiff’s motion articulates no good cause for such a continuance. Plaintiff provides no evidence of any of the supposed issues listed in her motion, nor does Plaintiff demonstrate that those issues will cause the case to not be ready for trial by January 28, 2025. Plaintiff certainly does not demonstrate that the trial needs to be delayed by an entire year.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is DENIED.