Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00016290-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024
04/26/2024  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 - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00016290-CU-PO-CTL VARELA SOTO VS CHEDRAUI USA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 01/02/2024
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED.
'[A]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.' CRC 3.1345(a). A response containing only objections is a 'response,' notwithstanding the fact that it need not be verified. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210(a)(3), 2030.250(a), 2031.210(a)(3), 2031.250(a), 2033.210(b), 2033.240(a).
Here, defendant served responses containing only objections on December 18, 2023. (Brito Decl., at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to provide 'full and complete substantive responses[.]' (Mot. at 2:1.) Thus, although styled as a motion to compel initial responses, plaintiff is actually moving to compel further responses. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a)(3), 2031.310(a)(3), 2033.290(a)(2).
Plaintiff, however, did not file a separate statement with the motion. Nor has plaintiff requested, or the court allowed, the submission of a 'concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute' in lieu of a separate statement. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(b)(2), 2031.310(b)(3), 2033.290(b)(2). Accordingly, the motion is denied. See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 (failure to include separate statement justified trial court's denial of discovery motion).
Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied in light of the court's ruling on the motion.
Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS
3072532  9