TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cathy Lydon’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Admission, Set Two, and Production of Documents, and Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,400, payable by Plaintiff Cathy Lydon to Defendant Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Cathy Lydon shall pay a second motion filing fee of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order.

Plaintiff Cathy Lydon to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Cathy Lydon (“Plaintiff”) moves for further responses to her Requests for Admission, Set Two, and Request for Production, Set One, propounded to Defendant Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S. (“Defendant”). At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed two motions as one motion, i.e., each set of discovery should have its own motion, and Plaintiff has improperly combined the requests for admission and requests for production of documents into one motion. Plaintiff shall pay a second filing fee of $60 within ten (10) days of entry of this order.

If a party that has propounded requests for admissions or requests for production of documents believes that the responses received are evasive or incomplete, or that an objection to the request is without merit or too general, the propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to the requests for admissions or requests for production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); see also Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 [motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate” responses].)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration must “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) requires that any motion to compel further responses to discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied outright for failure to provide a separate statement as required, but the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s “basis for motion to compel further responses” to constitute a sufficient separate statement as a procedural matter. (See Mot., pp. 16-34.)

As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her Request for Production of Documents, Set One, the motion is not timely. Defendant provides evidence that he served his verified responses to this discovery on March 24, 2021. (Opp’n, Lam Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) It is axiomatic that unless notice of a motion to compel further responses to requests for production “is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) This timeliness requirement is mandatory, and in some sense may even be considered a matter of jurisdiction, and the Court therefore “[has] no power to make an order compelling further answers where the propounding party failed to serve this motion within the statutory time.” (Prof’l Career Colls., Magna Inst., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493; see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681 [same].) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for production of documents is DENIED. The Court will not opine as to the merits of the responses provided, as the Court does not issue advisory opinions.

As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her Requests for Admission, Set Two, the Court begins by noting that Plaintiff served an excessive number of requests given the relative simplicity of this case. Plaintiff has one remaining claim for negligence, but she propounded 215 requests as to this single defendant with a single claim against him. Plaintiff also fails to provide evidence that she met and conferred with Defendant as to the responses provided on March 8, 2024, as the meet-and-confer letter shows it was served on March 1, 2024, and subsequent communication did not relate to this defendant. (Mot., Lydon Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, Exs. E, F.) Even if Plaintiff had complied with procedural requirements, the Court has reviewed the responses and finds them to be code-compliant, as Defendant provided complete admissions or denials, or stated that the responses could not be admitted or denied for a certain identified reason. (Mot., Lydon Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5, 7, Exs, C, D.) Plaintiff essentially takes issue with the nature of the responses, but this is not a proper basis for a motion to compel further responses. (See Mot., pp. 6-7.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for admission is also denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cathy Lydon’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Admission, Set Two, and Production of Documents, and Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310, subdivision (h), and 2033.290, subdivision (d), provide that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanctions . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response,” “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,800 for the motion. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are required here given that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and filed an untimely motion, and she presents no facts that would compel a conclusion that imposition of a sanction would be unjust here. However, the Court reduces the sanction award to $1,400, which constitutes three hours preparing the opposition to the motion and one hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of four hours, at the rate of $350 per hour. Accordingly, Defendant Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,400, payable by Plaintiff Cathy Lydon to Defendant Kourosh Maddahi, D.D.S. and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.