Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20STCV23453, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23453    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     March 13, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: August 27, 2024

CASE:                         DARRENE TRIPLETT; DEBRA THOMPKINS, v. CHOICE HOTELS INSURANCE, INC.; RODEWAY INN & SUITE PASADENA; SHAIL A.; MIKE DOE; SAM PATEL; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 20STCV23453

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Jala Sai LLC dba Rodeway Inn & Suites, Sahil Parikh, Mike Mahida, and Choice Hotels International, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed December 14 and 15, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide further responses to their discovery requests.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Darrene Triplett and Debra Thompkins’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that they suffered bedbug bites while staying at a hotel operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 22, 2020, alleging six causes of action for (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) private nuisance, and (6) public nuisance.      

TENTATIVE RULING

             Defendants’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants moves to compel further responses to their discovery requests.

            Defendants provide that they served their discovery requests, which include form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents, on September 30, 2022. (Lee Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant provides that Plaintiffs served their discovery responses on December 17, 2022. (Id. ¶ 9.) Defendants provide that Plaintiffs’ responses contained only objections. (Ibid.)

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

Defendants previously filed these motion as “motions to compel a response”. At the informal discovery conference, Defendants were informed that their motion was improperly classified. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a)(3), provides that a party may respond to a demand for inspection with “[a]n objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” Further, a party may move for further responses on the grounds that “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).) Because the relevant code sections allow a party responding to a discovery response to object and a party to compel further responses over those objections, the correct motion here is a motion to compel further responses.

Thus, Defendants refiled these motions as motions to compel further. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a), a motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute”. Defendants have failed to attach a separate statement to these motions.

Further, a motion to compel further is required to be filed within 45 days of service of the responses. The responses at issue here were served on December 17, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their initial improperly classified motion on March 24, 2023, after the 45-day window. Additionally, these current motions are procedurally deficient because they lack a separate statement. Defendants’ motions to compel further responses are denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   March 13, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org