Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00006, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00006    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 5, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         DAVE BARELA, an individual, dba JD & ASSOCIATES, v. JIE WANG, an individual; KIKO JIA LIU aka JIAQI LIU, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00006

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Dave Barela

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Kiko Jia Liu and Jie Wang

SERVICE:                              Filed November 27, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed February 21, 2023

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to provide further responses to his requests for production.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Dave Barela’s claim that Defendant Jie Wang owes an outstanding debt. Plaintiff filed this complaint on January 3, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to his requests for the production of documents are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to his requests for the production of documents. Plaintiff provides he served his requests for the production of documents on “April 4, 2008”. (Barela Decl. ¶ 2.) However, it appears that requests for production of documents were served on August 7, 2023. (Id. ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant served deficient responses on October 6, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) Plaintiff filed this motion on November 27, 2023, and served the motion and notice of motion on November 22, 2023.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c), “[u]nless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

Because the responses were served October 6, 2023, the deadline to file the instant motion was November 20, 2023. Plaintiff did not serve the notice of motion until 2 days after the 45-day window. Plaintiff also does not provide that the parties agreed in writing to extend the deadline. Plaintiff’s motions are untimely.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to his requests for the production of documents are DENIED.

            Moving Party to provide notice

Dated:   March 5, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court