Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV20161, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20161    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Yoshitaka Takeuchi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Select 7, LLC is CONTINUED to _______.

Plaintiff to give notice.

I.                MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER — INTERROGATORIES

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Plaintiff Yoshitaka Takeuchi (Plaintiff) seeks further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1–6. These interrogatories sought contact and immigration information for all of Defendant’s employees, descriptions of their job positions, and identifications of all of Defendant’s corporate officers, CPAs, and affiliate companies. (Separate Statement.) Defendant responded to each interrogatory with objections. (Ibid.)

Defendant in opposition argues that the motion is untimely, and was served upon Defendant’s counsel while they were out of the office until January 9, 2023, leaving them to learn of the motion only on January 10. (Farmer Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.)

The motion is untimely as presently scheduled. Motions must be filed 16 court days before their scheduled hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).) Although the motion was filed on December 28, 2022 — 16 court days before the scheduled hearing on January 23, 2023 — the time for such hearing must be further extended by two court days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B). Thus the motion was not timely by this reckoning.

Moreover, Defendant has shown good cause for continuance of the motion hearing, as its counsel was out of the office for several days while the motion was served, and thus lacked actual notice of the motion until after the opposition was due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).)

The motion is thus CONTINUED to ________.