Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 21PSCV00702, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00702, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00702 Hearing Date: October 24, 2024 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Cecilia Robledo, et al. v. Jenny Milner, et al.

1 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories by Plaintiff Rachel Neu and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions;

2 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Rachel Neu and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions;

3 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories by Plaintiff Rachel Neu and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions;

4 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Sheila Robles and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions;

5 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories by Plaintiff Sheila Robles and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions; and

6 – Defendant Peter Elias’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories by Plaintiff Sheila Robles and Imposition of Monetary Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court summarily DENIES Defendant Peter Elias’ motions to compel further responses to both sets of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. The Court DENIES Defendant Peter Elias’ motions to compel further responses to both sets of Requests for Production of Documents as moot. The Court also DENIES Defendant Peter Elias’ requests for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs Rachel Neu and Sheila Robles are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a dispute regarding collection of rents. On August 30, 2021, plaintiff Cecilia Robledo, trustee of the Luis M. Elias Trust, filed this action against defendants Jenny Milner, Peter Elias (Elias), Mario Garcia, and Does 1 through 20. On March 30, 2022, plaintiffs Sheila Robles, aka Cecilio Robledo, and Rachel Neu, co-trustees of the Luis M. Elias Trust (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against the same defendants, alleging causes of action for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, and action for rent. On March 20, 2023, defendant Jenny Millner was dismissed from this action.

On August 30, 2024, defendant Elias moved to compel further responses from Plaintiffs to various written discovery requests. On September 17, 2024, an informal discovery conference was held, in which the parties agreed for Plaintiffs to serve supplemental responses by close of business on October 4, 2024, and to produce supplemental documents by close of business on October 11, 2024. On October 14, 2024, Plaintiffs opposed the motions. Elias did not reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), further provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), further provides that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ oppositions were filed on October 14, 2024, instead of by the deadline of October 11, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The oppositions are therefore untimely. Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to still consider the oppositions, and admonishes Plaintiffs to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

DISCUSSION

Untimely Motions

A party seeking to compel further responses to discovery must file the motion within the statutory deadline, or the right to do so is waived; a court is without jurisdiction to do anything but deny the motion if filed after that time, even in the absence of written opposition on this ground. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1411 (Sexton).) Although not mentioned in the parties’ respective briefs, the Court notes that, based on Plaintiffs mail serving their responses to Elias’ Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on July 10, 2024, the deadline for Elias to file his motions to compel further responses as to those discovery requests was August 29, 2024. (Palacios Decls. ISO Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Ex. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) It is not enough that Elias served the motions on August 29, 2024. (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 341 [a motion is made when it is both filed and served].) Elias filed the motions on August 30, 2024. Therefore, Elias’ motions to compel further responses to both sets of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories are untimely, which then means the Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on them except to deny them. (Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1410; see Code Civ Proc., § 1005.5.) Therefore, the Court DENIES the motions to compel further responses to both sets of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories.

The motions to compel further responses to both sets of Requests for Production of Documents are timely because Plaintiffs mail served those responses on July 13, 2024, which created a deadline of September 3, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § Palacios Decls. ISO Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Ex. 2.) The Court therefore has the jurisdiction to rule on those motions.

Meet and Confer

In light of the parties having attended an Informal Discovery Conference, the Court finds the parties’ efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2); Minute Order (9/17/24).)

Analysis

Elias contends he served the underlying written discovery requests on Plaintiffs on June 18, 2024. Elias contends Plaintiffs’ responses are inadequate. Elias asks the Court to order Plaintiffs to provide further responses. In opposition, Plaintiffs contend they served amended responses and produced additional documents, thus rendering Elias’ motions moot.

In light of Plaintiffs providing amended responses to Elias’ written discovery requests, it appears to the Court that Elias complied with the parties’ agreement at the Informal Discovery Conference, thus rendering Elias’ motions moot. (McMeekin Decls., ¶ 4; Minute Order (9/17/24).) Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions to compel further responses to both sets of Requests for Production of Documents as moot.

The Court further DENIES the requests for monetary sanctions, finding the imposition of sanctions here not warranted given Plaintiffs provided amended responses as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h); Minute Order (9/17/24).)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Rachel Neu and Sheila Robles are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.