Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2021-00043417-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00043417-CU-PA-CTL BARUCH VS WADE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 05/28/2024

Plaintiff's motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and requests for production of documents are DENIED.

Notice of a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or a specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c). The 45-day deadline is extended by 2 court days for electronic service. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6(a)(4)(B), 2016.050, 1013(g). This time limit is 'mandatory and jurisdictional' in that it 'renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.' Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

In this case, defendant Alex Devin Wade served supplemental responses via email on March 5, 2024.

(Morse Decl., ¶ 4.) Thus, plaintiff had until April 23, 2024 to file her motions to compel further responses. Plaintiff, however, did not file and serve her motions until May 28 and May 29 – i.e., over than one month later. (See Ohnoki Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Plaintiff argues that the motions are timely because defendant waived notice at an ex parte hearing held on March 20, 2024. This is not correct. While defendant waived notice of the court's ex parte ruling (ROA 97), there is no evidence that he waived his right to receive statutory notice of the motions to compel. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5(a) ('When a motion is granted or denied, unless the court otherwise orders, notice of the court's decision or order shall be given by the prevailing party to all other parties or their attorneys, in the manner provided in this chapter, unless notice is waived by all parties in open court and is entered in the minutes.').

Plaintiff also contends that defendant was provided notice of today's hearing at the March 20 ex parte hearing. The court disagrees. 'Notices must be in writing[.]' Code Civ. Proc. § 1010. 'Where written notice is required, oral notice will not suffice.' In re Marriage of Lugo (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 427, 434.

'The fact...that an opposing party has actual knowledge of a pending court proceeding does not excuse the moving party from the requirement of giving the written notice required by statute.' Id. Here, because written notice of the motions was given more than 45 days plus two court days after the supplemental responses were served, the motions are untimely. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).

Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied in light of this ruling.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102106  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BARUCH VS WADE [IMAGED]  37-2021-00043417-CU-PA-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102106  9