Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV00797, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV00797, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00797 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 6/12/24

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV00797 ARLET TALAMANTES vs DAVID ALEXANDER MELENDEZ

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant David Alexander Melendez

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff served his second set of requests for production on Defendant. Defendant served his responses on February 21, 2024. The deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was April 9, 2024, and Defendant granted no extensions for filing this motion. Plaintiff filed the current motion on May 13, 2024.

A crucial issue between the parties is whether the motion is untimely. Under Code of Civil Procedure, § 2031.310(c), if a motion is not filed within 45 days of service of the responses, the moving party waives any rights to compel further responses. Plaintiff does not dispute the foregoing timeline but presents two arguments.

First, Plaintiff argues that according to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.080(c)(2), the timeframe for filing any motion to compel or other discovery motion is suspended from the date a party requests an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) via email. CCP 2016.080(c)(2) states that if an IDC is granted or ordered, the court MAY toll the deadline for filing a discovery motion. However, the Eighth Amended Standing Order for the Personal Injury Hub Court clarifies that reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the deadline to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. (Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Court at pg. 8.) If parties do not stipulate to extend the deadline(s) to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses, the moving/propounding party may file the motion to avoid it being deemed untimely. (Id.)

Second, Plaintiff argues that the 45 days deadline only starts to run when the responses are verified. Unverified responses are "tantamount to no responses at all," and a motion to compel responses may be filed where responses are not verified and contain no objections. (Appleton v. Superior Court, (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632.) The court reviewed the discovery requests and responses in question and noted that the responses are indeed unverified. However, the court also observed that Defendant’s responses only contain objections, and under CCP § 2031.250(a), a party is not required to sign the response under oath if it contains only objections. Therefore, verifications are not required for the responses at issue.

Currently, there is no case directly addressing whether the 45-day clock begins to run when responses consist solely of objections and are unverified. The closest relevant case is Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136, which dealt with discovery responses containing both objections and substantive answers. The court deferred the question of whether there would be an “absurd result,” as the trial court put it, if there is no time limit on a motion to compel involving objections.

This Court opines that it would indeed be absurd if there were no time limit on a motion to compel that involves only objections, which do not require any verifications. The statute added the word “verified” to responses before starting the clock on the 45 days because it was felt many in the litigation bar engaged in a “common practice” of serving timely unverified responses to discovery with the promise of providing verifications for the same as soon as possible. (Id.) This common practice led to confusion as to when the clock began to run; did it run when the unverified responses were served or only after the verifications were provided? (Id.) However, when responses consist of only objections, it is complete by itsself and no further verifications are required. The problem envisioned by the legislature is inapplicable.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to compel further to be untimely, and it is therefore denied.

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.