Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV17200 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV17200, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17200 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

March 13, 2023

21STCV17200

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Alpha Beta Company

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Alpha Beta Company

-Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Request for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendant Alpha Beta Company

DECISION

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal of Complaint for Failure to Serve Defendant Kroger within Statutory Two Year Period; OSC Re: Dismissal of ABC Cross Complaint for Failure to File POS/Enter Default as to Defendant Canyon Crest Town Centre, LLC; and (3) OSC Re: Dismissal of Canyon Crest Cross Complaint for Failure to File POS/ Enter Default as to Defendant ABC for June 22, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

** Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Reponses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff does not oppose the substance of this motion. The motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified further responses to Form Interrogatories No No.2.6 and No. 14.1 within 15 days after the date of this order.

** Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories

As of December 14, 2022, Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).

45 days from December 14, 2022 is January 28, 2023. Motions to compel further responses to written discovery must be brought within 45 days (50 days if by mail) after service of the insufficient responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2031.30.)

As of February 1, 2023, Plaintiff served verified supplement responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). This supplemental response only included some of the Special Interrogatories, specifically 7 and 12.

Defendant filed its motion on February 14, 2023.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, except as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 12. With respect to the other interrogatories, Plaintiff contends that the 45 deadline was missed. Defendant argues that the language of the statute makes its motion timely.

After reading the statutes and all the filings on this matter again, the Court reaches the conclusion that Plaintiff has the better of the argument. Otherwise, a party could always reach back to move to compel original discovery response served long ago whenever a party serves a supplemental response to that discovery request. That interpretation would be contrary to the statutory purpose of the deadline which was aimed at insuring timely objections to discovery responses that are believed to be insufficient. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410.)

The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 12 and denied as to the rest.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified further responses within 15 days after the date of this order.

** Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production

The argument made with respect to this motion is the same argument as that made with respect to the special interrogatories.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Request No. 4 and denied as to the rest.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified further response and responsive documents within 15 days after the date of this order.

To the extent the items requested call for privileged matter, Plaintiff must provide a privilege log as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240.

Plaintiff’s further responses must be code compliant.

For reach request, the response must be clear: (1) There will be no production of any documents whatsoever based solely upon the privilege objection; (2) There will be a production of all documents without any objection; (3) There will be a production of documents, in part, in that some documents will not be produced based upon a privilege objection(s) and/or an inability to comply; and (4) There will be no production of any documents based upon an “inability to comply.”

Code compliant language includes the following language from Section 2031.220

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, 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.

Code compliant language also includes the following language from Section 2031.230.

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

Sanctions

The Court declines to impose sanctions on either party. The Court notes that it expects the parties to agree to extensions of time to file motions to compel further to facilitate the resolution of discovery issues through the use of IDCs and though the meet and confer process.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.