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.

 

 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)

)

)

)

 

    CASE NO.: 22STCV11527

 

[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