Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC06584 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

The hearing on the Motions to Compel Further Responses filed by Plaintiffs Humberto Castillo Mariscal and Cristina Gonzalez is CONTINUED TO MARCH 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

On October 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Humberto Castillo Mariscal (“Mariscal”) and Cristina Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed an action against Defendants Angel Rodriguez (“Angel”), Violeta Rodriguez (“Violeta”), and Jose Salvador Ortega (“Jose”), (collectively “Defendants”) arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on November 28, 2021.

On November 15, 2022, Defendants Angel and Violeta filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On November 23, 2022, based on Plaintiffs’ request, the Court entered default against Defendant Jose. (11-23-22 Request for Entry of Default.)

1) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant Angel Rodriguez to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTCF Form re: Angel”);

2) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant Violeta Rodriguez to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTCF Form re: Violeta”);

3) Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant Angel Rodriguez to Production Demand (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTCF Prod. re: Angel”).

On February 9, 2023, Defendants Angel and Violeta filed a Notice of Change of Firm Name.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).) Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration “showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)).

Furthermore, “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) If the motion is granted, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).) Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(3)).

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Motions have not been timely served on Defendants. According to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing” with an additional ten (10) calendar days if the place of mailing or address of mailing are outside the State of California but within the United States. Moreover, “if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

Here, the moving papers were mailed on February 8 and 9, 2023, from the State of California to the State of Texas, instead of January 23, 2023, as required by § 1005(b). Moreover, the papers were emailed to defense counsel on February 8 and 9, 2023, instead of January 31, 2023, as required by § 1005(b). Defendants have not opposed the Motions.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motions to allow Defendants additional time to review the moving papers and file oppositions.

[1] According to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing” with an additional ten (10) calendar days if the place of mailing or address of mailing is outside the State of California but within the United States. Moreover, “if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) Here, the moving papers were mailed on February 8 and 9, 2023, from the State of California to the State of Texas, instead of January 23, 2023, as required by § 1005(b). Moreover, the papers were emailed on February 8 and 9, 2023, instead of January 31, 2023, as required by § 1005(b).