Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 21STCV17546, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17546    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 24

MOVING PARTY: Shahrooz Taheri (Plaintiff)

RESP.  PARTY: Kreation Juicery, Inc.; Self Love, LLC

 

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Kreation Juicery, Inc. to provide further responses and produce all documents to requests no. 1-12, 15-30, 33-34, 39-48, 51, 54, 58-60, 66-67 in Plaintiffs first set of Request for Production; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to provide further responses to No. 211.1 and 216.1 from Plaintiffs first set of Employment-Form Interrogatories; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to Plaintiffs second set of Special Interrogatories No. 21,24,30,31,33, and 35 through 168

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

The above-captioned matters are called for hearing.

 

The Court has read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its tentative rulings in open Court.

 

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to Employment - Form Interrogatories (set one) 211.1 and 216.1 and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 900709780865 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/03/2023; the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Kreation Juicery, Inc. to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (set one) and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 160088416811 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/036/2023; and the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to Employment Form Interrogatory (set one) 21,24,30,31,33, and 35 through 168 and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 868772852761 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/06/2023 are DENIED without prejudice.

 

In each motion, Plaintiff did not attach any supporting evidence to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Armand Jaafari.

 

Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling (i) Defendant Self Love, LLC (“Self Love”) to provide further responses to special interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, and 35 through 168, (ii) Self Love to provide further response to employment form interrogatories set one (“EROG”) Nos. 211.1 and 216.1, and (iii) Defendant Kreation Juicery Inc. (“Kreation”) to provide further response and produce all documents responsive to requests for production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-12, 15-30, 33-34, 39-48, 51, 54, 58-60, 66-67.

 

Plaintiff also request sanctions but does not specify amount sought in the notice or the motions—the motions each state “XXXX” amount. Additionally, Plaintiff names defendants in the motion, but does not identify counsel by name or firm in the notice of motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040)

 

DISCUSSION

 

1. Self Love – Responses to SROGs, Set One

 

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Self Love to provide further responses to SROG Nos. 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, and 35 through 168. Plaintiff states in the moving papers that on June 2, 2021, he served Self Love with SROGs set one. After extensive meet and confer between the parties Self Love supplied Plaintiff with largely objection only responses. Plaintiff seeks further responses.

 

A party may move for an order compelling further response if “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[, or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300.)

 

As a preliminary matter, the court cannot ascertain if the motion is timely under the code section. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting when Self Love provided responses or confirming the motion to compel deadline was extended by agreement of the parties until the present. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s counsel, Armand Jaafari (“Jaafari”), submits his declaration in support of the motion. Jaafari does not state when the SROGs were served. Through some inadvertence, Jaafari refers to numerous attached exhibits, but he attaches no exhibits to his declaration, the motion, or the separate statement.

 

“Unless 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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The court strictly enforces this time requirement. (See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683 [the time limitation “is mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel”].)

 

Due to the lack of attached exhibits, the court cannot review the actual requests or responses beyond what is within Plaintiff’s separate statement. The court also cannot review the scope of the parties’ meet and confer efforts regarding the disputed discovery.

 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion with attached exhibits in support.

 

2. Self Love – Responses to EROGs Set One

 

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Self Love to provide further response to employment form interrogatories set one (“EROG”) Nos. 211.1 and 216. The motion fails for the same reasons discussed above—there are no exhibits in support of the motion. Additionally, Plaintiff does not attach a separate statement regarding EROGs Nos. 211.1 and 216 as required. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.) Instead, Plaintiff incorrectly attaches a separate statement regarding Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) Nos. 12.1-12.3.

 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

 

3. Kreatine – Responses to RFPs Set One

 

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Kreation to provide further response and produce all documents responsive RFP Nos. 1-12, 15-30, 33-34, 39-48, 51, 54, 58-60, 66-67. The motion fails for the same reasons discussed above—there are no exhibits in support of the motion.

 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

 

Moving party is directed to give notice.