Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV16188, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16188    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff Nydia McFadden filed this action against Defendant William Rogers, asserting sixteen causes of action arising from alleged habitability issues, harassment, discrimination, and illegal rent increases.

            On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant filed his opposition on November 21, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 27, 2024.  

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdictional Deadline

            The deadline for a motion to compel further responses is 45 days after receipt of the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).) This deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Here, Defendant served his responses to interrogatories on August 21, 2024 and September 4, 2024. (Wobbe Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff filed this motion on November 1, 2024, beyond 45 days.

            Plaintiff argues that defense counsel granted a motion extension to November 1, 2024, citing Exhibit B to the declaration of Julia Wobbe. (Reply 2:16-17.) No declaration is attached to the reply. Assuming Plaintiff is referring to the original declaration of Julia Wobbe, filed with the moving papers, the Exhibit B thereto is a meet and confer letter from Ms. Wobbe herself. This letter does not, nor could it, show opposing counsel agreeing to an extension. Plaintiff otherwise cites no authority for her proposition that the deadline is tolled while meet and confer is ongoing. At most, the Code allows the parties to agree in writing to an extension. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).) 

Thus, the motion is untimely as to the interrogatories.

II. Requests for Production

            A party has thirty days to respond to requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).) If the responding party fails to produce timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses. (Id., § 2031.300(b).) Here, Defendant produced a flash drive of hundreds of unlabeled documents, but never served written responses to the RFPs. (Wobbe Decl. ¶ 10.) Thus, an order compelling the responses is warranted.

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. However, no meet and confer is required for a motion to compel responses in the first instance. Defendant also contends that he is not required to bates stamp the documents. However, “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280(a).) Thus, Defendant must either label his production accordingly, or provide the corresponding bates stamps in his responses to each RFP.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to the RFPs and DENIED as to the interrogatories. Defendant shall provide written responses to the RFPs within 15 days of this order. Sanctions are denied.