Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV36554, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36554    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Background   

             On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company filed the instant interpleader action against Defendants Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Stella Sandoval (collectively, the “Silvermans”), Howarth & Smith (“Howarth”), and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (“Engstrom”) regarding the distribution of settlement fees arising from the Woolsey Fire Litigation, Coordinated Case No. JCCP 5000 and Individual Case No. 19STCV04409.

            On April 5, 2023, Howarth filed the instant motion to compel the Silvermans and Engstrom’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”).  On April 18, 2023, the Court conducted an informal discovery conference.  On May 10, 2023, the Silvermans and Engstrom filed an opposition.  On May 15, 2023, Howarth 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

            As noted at the conclusion of the April 18, 2023 informal discovery conference, only Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom’s responses to RPDs No. 3 and 10 remain at issue.

The Instant Motion Must be Denied as 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 [for production of documents].”  (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.)  This 45-day limit is extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically.  (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)

            Here, despite the hundreds of pages of evidence, the moving papers contain no evidence that Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom were served with any RPDs.  Thus, Howarth fails to provide facts showing good cause for bringing the instant motion.  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) 

            Moreover, the discovery responses that Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom provided clearly indicate that the instant motion is jurisdictionally untimely.  Pursuant to the meet and confer evidence provided, Howarth’s Counsel concedes that on January 9, 2023, Howarth was in receipt of Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom’s responses to the RPDs at issue.  (Smith Decl. ¶ 38, Exh. 32.)  There is no evidence that Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom provided supplemental responses to the RPDs at issue.  As such, the instant motion filed 86 days after receipt of the RPDs at issue is clearly untimely.  Moreover, Howarth fails to present any evidence of a written agreement to extend the deadline to file the instant motion.  Nor has Howarth moved for relief.  As such, the instant motion is untimely, and the Court must deny the instant motion.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, Defendant Howarth & Smith’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production from Defendants Jack Silverman, Clara Silverman, Mariel Sandoval, and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: May 23, 2023                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court