Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV21127, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV21127    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant and Plaintiff County of Los Angeles’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Requests for Production, Set Three, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Responses to be served by 3/31/23.

I.                   MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

The time in which to respond to a written discovery demand is generally within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a); 2031.260, subd. (a).) This is unless “on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Ibid.)

Defendant County of Los Angeles (County) moves for a 30-day extension of its time to respond to Requests for Production, Set Three, plus Special Interrogatories, Set One, served upon it by Plaintiffs Sina and Azadeh Mardani (Plaintiffs) on December 19, 2022, with an original due date of January 23, 2023. County argues that the date was inconvenient, as it required the compiling of responses through several winter holidays and other case deadlines, including County’s responses to other discovery that was the subject of an earlier court order, as well as Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. (Thomas Decl. at pp. 11–12.) County claims that when it asked for a 30-day extension in light of the above, Plaintiff offered only an extension of one week. (Thomas Decl. at p. 11, Exh. 3.)

Plaintiffs in opposition do not oppose the granting of an extension of time. (Opposition at p. 2.) They contend, however, that they served the discovery on December 19, 2022, in light of the motion for summary judgment that County filed on December 2, 2022, and for which an opposition was due on February 14, 2023. (Opposition at p. 2.) (Hearing on that motion has since been continued to July 13, 2023.) Plaintiffs also argue that they offered a two-week extension of time to respond to discovery, not a one-week extension as County maintains. (Opposition Exh. A.)

County has shown good cause for the extension it seeks, given the winter holidays and several concurrent case deadlines surrounding the discovery at issue. Plaintiffs do not oppose the extension.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.