Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00744, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00744    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 26

Proud Auto Services, Inc. v. Alvarado, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendants Jesus Armando Alvarado and Rosario Trinh (“Defendants”). (Motions, Miller Decl., Exh. 1.) Despite a meet and confer effort extending the deadline to respond to the requests, Defendants have not served responses. (Id. at ¶¶3-4 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Sanctions, on October 17, 2022. No opposition to the Motions has been filed to date.

Discussion

Initially, the Court addresses the fact that Plaintiff combined discovery motions with respect to separate sets of discovery on Defendants into a single motion. (Motions, Miller Decl., Exh. 1.) Combining multiple requests into a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Furthermore, it allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Plaintiff’s Motions, therefore, cannot be heard in full until two additional filing fees are paid.

Also, the Court finds that the discovery requests served on Defendants do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 94, which limits the number of written discovery requests to 35 in the limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a).) As previously noted, Plaintiff has served more than 35 requests on Defendants. (Motion, Miller Decl., Exh. 1; Minute Order, 12/05/22.) Based on the foregoing, the discovery motions are denied. The Court will not grant motions to compel discovery propounded in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Court clerk to give notice.