Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08904, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08904    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 26

McGee v. Knutzen, et al.

COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jordan Knutzen’s Renewed (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff James McGee (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Jordan Knutzen (“Defendant Knutzen”) and Katherine Flores (“Defendant Flores”) on December 16, 2021. Defendant Knutzen filed the first Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (“the first discovery motions”) on June 23, 2022. At the initial hearing on August 2, 2022, the Court granted the first Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions. (Minute Order, 08/02/22.) The Court also continued the first Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Sanctions without prejudice because the necessary exhibits were not attached to the supporting declaration. (Ibid.) At the continued hearing date, the Court found Defendant Knutzen had not filed the supplemental declaration as ordered and the denied the Motion. (Minute Order, 10/18/22.)

On December 28, 2022, Defendant Knutzen filed the same Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (“the renewed discovery motions”). As before, no opposition has been filed in response.

When a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied, it must bring a renewed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43, fn. 11; see also Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156-157.) When a motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again for the same relief at a later time only upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b); see Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.)

It is unclear why Defendant Knutzen re-filed the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, which was already granted on August 2, 2022. As for the renewed Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, which the Court denied, no declaration is provided as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

Therefore, Defendant Jordan Knutzen’s Renewed (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.