Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01029, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01029    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, NO. 22, SET TWO

Motion filed: 2/29/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant L.A. Hardwood Flooring, Inc. (“LAHD” or “Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff K L Ventures Inc. (“Plaintiff””)

NOTICE: OK. 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, No. 22, Set Two.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant L.A. Hardwood Flooring Inc. and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty - Merchantability, (3) Breach of Implied Warranty – Fitness of Purpose, and (4) Fraud. Subsequently, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 16, 2023.

On February 29, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, No. 22, Set Two (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Opposition.

No replying papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      45-Day Rule

“Unless notice of this motion [to compel further responses to production of documents] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand for productions.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

A court lacks jurisdiction to rule on untimely motions to compel further responses. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408-1410 (Sexton); Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683 [The statutory deadline for filing motions to compel further responses are “mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel.”]

Here, Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set Two, were served via email on January 2, 2024 (Netzah Decl., ¶ 3), thereby establishing the deadline for Defendant to file a motion to compel further responses as February 20, 2024, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures sections 2031.310 subdivision (a) and 1005 subdivision (b).

Furthermore, Defendant’s counsel attests that on February 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel granted an extension for Defendant to file any necessary motions to compel further responses until February 29, 2024. The instant Motion was filed on February 29, meeting the deadline.

Consequently, the Court concludes that the instant Motion was filed timely. 

2.      Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production must be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Defendant has met the above requirement by filing a separate statement explaining the demand for production at issue, Plaintiff’s responses, and why further responses are necessary.

3.      Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for productions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel acknowledges that a meet and confer session did not take place before his filing of the instant Motion. (Netzah Decl., ¶ 12.) He attests that he sustained a second-degree burn injury on February 16, 2024, and was in the process of healing during that period. (Id., ¶¶ 6-10.) Additionally, Defendant’s counsel attempted to request another extension from Plaintiff on February 29, 2024; however, his request was denied. (Id., ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff contends that the Court lacks “jurisdiction” to decide on the merits of the Motion due to Defendant’s failure to meet and confer before filing the Motion and to provide a code-compliant declaration, citing Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th, at 1410.

The Sexton case considers the statutory requirement for a 45-day limitation and held that “although the 45-day limitation is not ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental sense, it is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the trial court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Id., at 1403.) However, Sexton did not opine that the same determination can be extended to other requirements such as meet and confer.

As the Court of Appeal pointed out in Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 (Sinaiko), “[a]lthough the ‘meet and confer’ requirement is an express prerequisite to moving to compel further responses to interrogatories [Citation], and inspection demands [Citation], no such requirement appears in the statues permitting sanctions based on a party’s violation of a court order compelling responses [Citations] or for misuse of discovery [Citation].”

In line with the observation of the Sinaiko court, the Court finds that the ruling in Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (Obregon) is directly relevant to the meet and confer requirement. According to Obregon, an inadequate effort at informal resolution does not require complete denial of the requested discovery. (Id., at 433.) The Obregon court stated, “[N]ot every finding that additional informal resolution efforts are required can be categorized as a failure so egregious as to justify summary denial of discovery. Such categorical rulings should be reserved for cases of clear intent to burden or harass, cases of clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities, cases of established track records of lack of good faith, and the like. The range of a judge's discretion is broad, and litigants cannot always predict exactly where on that broad range a particular judge might alight in a particular case.” (Id., at 434.)

Based on the aforementioned records, the Court, in its discretion, determines that Defendant’s failure to fulfill the pre-filing meet and confer requirement was not motivated by any intent to burden or harass, nor was it indicative of a lack of good faith. Consequently, in accordance with the Obregon ruling, the Court concludes that complete denial of the Motion is not warranted.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, No. 22, Set Two, to allow the parties additional time to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (c).

CONCLUSION

 The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Productions, No. 22, Set Two is CONTINUED to May 08 , 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department F-49.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental meet and confer declaration that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 subdivision (c) prior to the above-set hearing date.

Moving party to give notice.