Judge: Dennis J. Keough, Case: 2021-01235123, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production

The Motion of plaintiff Susan Longardino to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion 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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

The Motion was previously heard on April 20, 2023. On April 20, the Court continued the hearing and ordered the parties to (1) further meet and confer as to Request Nos. 1, 8, 10, 22, 23, 32, 33, 43, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83; and (2) provide evidence of when the verification was served. (ROA No. 94.)

Meet and confer: The parties have shown that they complied with the order to meet and confer and were able to resolve Request Nos. 8, 18, 22, 32, 74, 75, 76, 81 and 83.

Timeliness: Defendant provided supplemental responses to the Request for Production of Documents on December 2, 2022. (Smith Decl., ¶ 24, Ex. 9.) The Joint Statement states that the “verifications to Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production that were provided on or about December 2, 2023.” (Joint Statement, p. 2, lns. 13-14.) The Notice of Motion was served on January 31, 2023, approximately 60 days after the verification to Defendant’s Supplemental Responses were served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant extended Plaintiff’s deadline to compel further responses. Further, neither the December 20, 2022, nor the January 26, 2023, correspondence requested an extension to move to compel further responses. (Smith Decl., ¶ 39-40, Exs. 19-20.)

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show that the Motion was timely served pursuant to section 2031.310, subdivision (c). The 45-day time limit is mandatory, and the court has no authority to grant a late motion. (Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410).

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.