Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00999, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00999    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: C

FERNANDEZ v. LA MIRADA ONE, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00999

HEARING:  9/19/23

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Fernandez’s motion to compel supplemental responses to requests for production of documents is DENIED without prejudice. 

II.            Plaintiff Fernandez’s motion to compel supplemental responses to special Interrogatories is DENIED without prejudice.

III.          Plaintiff Fernandez’s motion to compel supplemental responses to form Interrogatories is DENIED without prejudice.

The parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer on the discovery requests.  The 45-day deadline to file a motion will begin from the date of this order.  No sanctions to either party.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Fernandez moves to compel
further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one,
pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.

Plaintiff
Antonio Fernandez’s Complaint alleges that ‘[o]n June 29, 2022, Plaintiff went
to Cata Liquor, Defendant Shree Umiya, Inc.’s liquor store.  Defendant La Mirada One, LLC owns the real
property.  Plaintiff encountered ADA
non-compliant conditions for wheelchair users. 
Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.   
Violation
of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CC § 51-53)

2.   
Violation
of the California Disabled Persons Act (CC § 54.1)

CCP
§§ 2030.300 and 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further
answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate,
incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too
general.  The motion shall be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration.  (CCP
§§ 2030.300(b) and 2031.310(b).)  

The court finds that the parties did not adequately meet and confer.  Plaintiff received responses on January 18, 2023, but failed to meet and confer until March 1, 2023 by email.  The email indicates that the letter detailing the deficiencies would be mailed “the next day”, which was not received until March 3, 2023, two court days before the motion filing deadline.  Although the email indicates that Plaintiff was willing to extend the response deadline, it was conditioned on Defendant extending the motion deadline.  While an extension request is standard practice in the industry, such requests are normally made within a reasonable time to ensure an adequate response.  If made within tight deadlines, such requests are usually made by telephone to ensure that the respondent received the communication.  Further, this court critically notes that Defendant had requested an extension to respond to initial discovery requests, but Plaintiff failed to grant Defendant this courtesy. 

The court declines to award sanctions to Defendant because Defendant also failed to meet and confer.  Defendant could have responded to the email or telephoned opposing counsel, but failed to do so. 

Both counsel are reminded of their professional duty of civility towards each other.

The parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer on the discovery requests.  The 45-day deadline to file a motion will begin from the date of this order.