Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV11527, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11527 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
KITTIYA RAYLEN FISHER, Plaintiff, vs. TARGET
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE RULING] MOTIONS TO
COMPEL INITIAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ARE GRANTED Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. February 27, 2025 |
On
December 8, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set
One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Target Corporation via
email. Responses were initially due by January 10, 2024. The parties met and
conferred, and Plaintiff granted Defendant numerous extensions with a final
extended due date of April 5, 2024. However, no responses were provided by this
date. (Ex. B) On September 10, 2024, the parties had a call and Defendant
agreed to serve responses to outstanding discovery by October 4, 2024. (Ex. C)
Despite this agreement, Target still has not provided any discovery responses. Plaintiff
now moves the Court to compel initial discovery responses.
Defendant
filed an opposition stating that by the time the motion is to be heard, Target
will have produced verified substantive responses. Plaintiff filed a reply
confirming that responses were served but contained objections. Objections have
been waived due to Defendant's failure to serve responses by April 5, 2024.
In
its opposition, Defendant claims it should be allowed to assert objections
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a), arguing
that defense counsel's misunderstanding of the parties' agreement constitutes
"mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect." However, while the
code does permit relief from waiver, such relief must be sought through a
properly noticed motion, not raised in an opposition. Defendant’s request is
procedurally improper and will not be considered by the court at this juncture.
Defendant
contends that the deadlines were merely "aspirational" and tied to
other case events such as plaintiff's deposition and mediation. This argument
is not persuasive. The communications between the parties show that Plaintiff
gave Defendant numerous extensions with a final extended due date of April 5,
2024. When that deadline passed, the parties had a call on September 10, 2024, in
which Defendant promised to provide the responses by October 4, 2024.
Defense
counsel's declaration acknowledges these dates but characterizes them as
flexible goals rather than firm deadlines.
However, nothing in the contemporaneous email communications supports
this interpretation. There is no indication in any of the emails that the
timeline was flexible or contingent upon scheduling plaintiff's deposition or
mediation, and Defendant has not provided any communication showing such an
agreement. The fact that plaintiff's deposition had not yet occurred does not
excuse defendant's failure to comply with discovery obligations that were
already several months overdue.
Accordingly,
Defendant is ordered to provide complete and verified responses to the
discovery at issue within 20 days of today's date, without objections. The
Court also finds that Defendant failed to act with substantial justification
given the clear language of the email exchanges between the parties and lack of
evidence showing otherwise. Sanctions in the amount of $1,000 are ordered
against Defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff
within 20 days of today's date.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention
to submit on the tentative as directed by
the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all
other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the
hearing to argue. If the Court does not
receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court |