Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV25037, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25037    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff Paula Purcell filed this action against Defendants Equity Residential Management LLC and Duane Oseguera. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s neighbor harassed and terrorized her and that Defendants knowingly failed to address the situation. Plaintiff has since dismissed Duane Oseguera from the complaint.

            On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Equity’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant filed its opposition on April 4, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on April 5, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives its objections. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served the subject discovery on February 1, 2024. (Greer Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant did not provide responses by the deadline of March 6, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel requested an extension after the deadline, and Plaintiff agreed to an extra 1.5 weeks, to March 18, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) Defendant failed to provide responses by that deadline as well. (Ibid.) Defendant did not provide responses until March 22, 2024, after this motion was filed. (Malloy Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff acknowledges in reply that the motion is moot to the extent it seeks an order compelling responses.  

            However, Plaintiff maintains the motion as to sanctions. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 408-09.) Defense counsel avers that he missed the initial March 6 deadline due to a calendaring oversight. (Malloy Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant ultimately served responses four days after the voluntary extension. The Court finds that the delay was due to inadvertence or excusable neglect and did not result in prejudice to Plaintiff. Therefore, sanctions are not warranted for this motion. To the extent Plaintiff believes the responses are inadequate, she may file a motion to compel further, and sanctions for that will be considered separately.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED as moot. Sanctions are denied.