Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV07853, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV07853, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07853 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: 4/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.: 22STCV07583 DERRYL MINNER vs DAVID REYES

Motion Name: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, AND FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Postmates, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Insufficient

¿¿¿

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, AND FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Background

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case. On January 9, 2024, Postmates served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 36-55 on Plaintiff. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff served discovery responses. On February 22, 2024, Defendant sent Plaintiff a detailed meet and confer letter outlining deficiencies in Plaintiff's responses. Plaintiff requested an extension to respond by March 6, 2024, which Defendant granted. When Plaintiff requested a further one-week extension, Defendant refused and filed the present motion on March 8, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition stating that the motion is moot because the discovery responses at issue have been served on March 8, 2024, pursuant to the Parties' agreement.

Legal Standard

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).)

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also CCP §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).)

Demand for Inspection

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)

A motion to compel a further response to a request for production must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further response to the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) The motion must also be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of any issue presented by it. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) Finally, a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands must be accompanied by a separate document that sets forth each item to which further response is requested and the factual and legal reasons for compelling it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Notice Period

CCP § 1005(b) provides “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. … 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.”

CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B) Provides “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.”

Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 87 is on point. In Cole, the appellate court faced the same issue in relation to a summary judgment motion and, since CCP Section 437c does not expressly state any extension of the notice period for electronic service, it looked to CCP Section 1010.6, which addresses service by electronic transmission, to determine if any extension applies to such service. And, in fact, Section 1010.6(a)(3)(B) provides for a two-day notice extension for electronic service. Here, too, Section 1005(b) does not expressly state an extended notice period, so we look to Section 1010.6. Accordingly, Plaintiff needed to serve the motion 18 court days before the hearing.

Analysis and Conclusion

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff served the discovery responses at issue. On March 8, Defendant filed the present motion within the 45-day deadline pursuant to CCP § 2031.310. However, if served electronically, the motion must be served and filed 18 court days prior to the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b), CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B), Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 87.) The present motion was served electronically on March 8, 2024, for a hearing on April 2, 2024, which is only 16 court days before the hearing, rendering the motion untimely. Furthermore, because Plaintiff served the further discovery responses at issue, the motion is also moot. Thus, the present motion is DENIED.

Sanctions are denied because, as set forth above, the motion is denied, and, further, the Parties agreed that the supplemental responses would be provided on March 8, 2024 (Defendant’s Ex. G), and Plaintiff indeed provided the responses by that date. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1.)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿¿

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.