Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2019-01046203, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Production filed by Travis Fader and Megan Soman on 5/25/22

The redacted version of the document at issue was produced by Defendants on January 9, 2020 in response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production to OCFA, Set Two.  As such, Plaintiffs were required to compel the unredacted version with 45 days of receiving the redacted production if they found that the redactions were without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a)-(c).) 

Case law clearly establishes that “a party who fails to meet the time limits” of section 2031.310 may not “avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the same question again.”  (Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494.)  “Such a construction of the statute would obviously encourage delay and provide no incentive to attempt to resolve any dispute with the opposing party.”  (Ibid.)  “The Legislature has explicitly stated that unless a party moves to compel further response within 45 days of the unsatisfactory response, he waives any right to compel a further response.”  (Ibid.)

“[D]iscovery deadlines are mandatory and we have treated them as jurisdictional.”  (Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 322 [citing Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410].)  “Where a party does not obtain trial court relief from the statutory deadline, ‘failure to move for further answers within the statutory time forecloses further relief.’”  (Id. [citing O’Brien v. Superior Court (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 388, 391].)

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs Megan Soman and Travis Fader (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Document within 10 days of the Date of Hearing or in the Alternative, to be Produced at Time of Trial is DENIED as untimely.

Prevailing party to give notice.