Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV21447, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21447    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Tamara G. Harris’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendants Lewis Futterman and 1485 PH, LLC is DENIED.

I.                MOTIONS TO COMPEL

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff Tamara G. Harris (Plaintiff) seeks to compel responses from Defendants Lewis Futterman and 1485 PH, LLC (Defendants) to requests for production served on October 17, 2023. (Haefner Decl. ¶ 2.) Per several agreements to extend the deadline for response, responses were received on December 19, 2023, containing a mixture of objections and statements of compliance. (Haefner Decl. ¶¶ 3–6.) These responses did not include responsive documents. (Haefner Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling further responses without objection, and directions for Defendant to provide all documents responsive to the requests.

The motion is procedurally defective. Styled a motion to compel responses under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, no relief can be provided under that statute because responses have already been provided. Although Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to produce responsive documents, Plaintiff does not seek to compel compliance with the statements of compliance offered by Defendants, as would furnish a basis for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320, but instead seeks an order overruling all objections and compelling the production of all documents responsive to the requests. This motion is thus properly styled a motion to compel further under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310. But in this respect, it is a defective motion: Plaintiff has not conferred with Defendant concerning the objections at issue (Haefner Decl. Exh. G; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2)), has not set forth good cause justifying the production sought (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2031.310, subd (b)(1)), and does not include a separate statement of each request at issue, or a concise outline thereof. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) No relief can thus be granted on the motion.

The motion is therefore DENIED.