Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV02933, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02933    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Background   

             On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Jonathan Saavedra and Samuel Saavedra (jointly “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) arising out of Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500.  The complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty.   

            On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel Defendants further response to Request for Production, Set One.  On January 26, 2023, the Court continued the instant motion from February 14, 2023 to February 17, 2023.  On January 31, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition.  On February 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Requests for Production of Documents

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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 both 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.

Code Complaint Response

A code-compliant response to a request for production consists of any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply, (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or (3) an objection.  (CCP §§ 2031.210.)  A statement that the party will comply must state that the Request for Production (“RPD”) “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”  (CCP § 2031.220.)  “If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.”  (CCP § 2031.240(a).)  If an objection is made the responding party must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.”  (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).)

Discussion

By way of this motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to RPDs No. 16-43, and 45-46.

The Instant Motion is Untimely

“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.”  (CCP § 2031.310(c).)  “[T]he time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers to interrogatories.”  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The 45-day limit is “‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.”  (Ibid.)  Moreover, “[p]rejudice is not required; discovery deadlines are mandatory and we have treated them as jurisdictional [Citation], even though a trial court may grant relief from deadlines to file motions to compel. Where a party does not obtain trial court relief from the statutory deadline, ‘failure to move for further answers within the statutory time forecloses further relief ....’ [Citation.]”  (Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 322, Fn. 3.)  However, this 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically.  (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

Here, on May 18, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded the at issue Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.)  On June 15, 2022, Defendant electronically served its response to the at issue discovery requests.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B.)  Thus – absent a written agreement specifying a new date or the Court’s grant of an extension – Plaintiffs had until August 1, 2022 to timely bring the instant motion.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs began the meet and confer efforts by sending a letter to Defendant raising issues with specific responses at issue in the instant motion – i.e., the responses to requests 16-32, 37-43, and 45-46.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. C.)  On July 21, 2022, Defendant sent a response letter to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter agreeing to produce certain documents but standing by the objections raised in the original response to the at issue Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. C.)  On August 1, 2022, Plaintiffs sent another meet and confer letter regarding all of the at issue responses, including raising for the first time defects with Defendant’s responses to requests 33-36, and requested a response to the letter by August 8, 2022 and an extension for the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to August 22, 2022.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. D.)  In an email exchange the same day, Defendant agreed to extend the motion to compel further deadline to August 22, 2022.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. D.) On August 8, 2022, Defendant sent a response letter reasserting the objections in the original response and offering to provide a limited supplement to its production.  (Davina Decl. ¶ 10, Exh. D.)  “Defendant has failed to provide any meaningful response or supplemental its responses or produce additional documents to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts.”  (Davina Decl. ¶ 11.)

Accordingly, pursuant to the parties written agreement, Plaintiffs had until August 22, 2022 to timely file the instant motion.  Despite receiving a timely response to the August 1, 2022 meet and confer letter as requested which reasserted the objections raised in the original response, Plaintiff inexplicably waited until September 9, 2022 – 18 days after the date Plaintiffs requested and were granted to extend the deadline – to file the instant motion.  As Plaintiffs fail to show that the parties further agreed to extend the deadline in writing before the deadline expired, the instant motion is untimely.  Nor did Plaintiff timely request an extension to file the instant motion with the Court.  Therefore, the Court is without “without authority to rule on [the instant motion] other than to deny [it]”, (Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p.1410), as Plaintiffs’ “‘failure to move for further answers within the statutory time forecloses further relief ....’ [Citation.]”, (Weinstein, supra 25 Cal.App.5th at p.322, Fn. 3). 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Plaintiffs Jonathan Saavedra and Samuel Saavedra’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant General Motors LLC to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED.

Moving Parties are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 17, 2023                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                    Elaine Lu

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court