Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1237642, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff  Timothy D. Beloit and Carol L. Beloit’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set One, is DENIED.

A party moving to compel further responses to inspection demands must file and serve the motion within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any verified supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).)  The time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional;” a court has no authority to rule on untimely motions to compel other than to deny them.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, the parties agree that Plaintiffs’ deadline to file the present motion to compel was July 21, 2022.  (Opp. at 4:7; see also, Ex. 15 to Neubauer Decl., ROA 54.)  This motion was filed on July 22, 2022 and is thus untimely.  The court finds the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel (ROA 48) fails to demonstrate that counsel’s mistake in not timely filing this motion was excusable.  (Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1112.)

Furthermore, the court notes that it neglected to issue this court’s “Case Management Order (Song-Beverly Litigation)” in this matter.  The court has corrected this oversight.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to determine whether the documents so far produced meet the requirements of the Case Management Order.  To the extent they do not, a further motion to compel may be filed.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied as they did not prevail on their motion.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)

Counsel for Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.