Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC01715, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Hutchins v. 3rd Heaven Trucking, LLC, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION;

Plaintiff Victor Hutchins’ (1) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED.

Plaintiff Victor Hutchins (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action Defendants 3rd Heaven Trucking, LLC and Jonathan Young (“Defendant Young”) on March 21, 2022. Defendants filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on May 6, 2022.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. No oppositions have been filed to date.

Whether deliberately or unintentionally, Plaintiff’s Motions do not make clear whether they seek initial or further responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, and the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant Young. Although titled as, and brought pursuant to the statutes, for initial responses, the supporting declarations indicate these should be motions to compel further responses. Specifically, the meet and confer letter attached to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that Defendant Young served initial responses to the written discovery, and then demands supplemental responses. (Motion, Sands Decl., Exh. B.)

Also, the statues under which Plaintiff moves allow a propounding party to bring a motion to compel initial responses if the party to whom the discovery was directed fails to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b); § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Yet the Motions do not indicate that Defendant Young failed to serve a timely response. Instead, the Motions are brought on the grounds that Defendant Young failed to provide supplemental, code-compliant responses. No authority is cited for the proposition that failure to serve supplemental, code-compliant responses is grounds for an order compelling initial responses. Therefore, if brought as motions to compel initial responses, the Motions are denied.

If brought as motions to compel further responses, the Motions are not noticed properly nor supported with adequate authority. Nor does Plaintiff comply with the following procedural requirements. Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (d).) The Motions do not specifically indicate when Defendant Young’s discovery responses to the discovery requests were served. However, they were served before February 7, 2024. (Motions, Sands Decl., ¶¶1-5 and Exh. B.) The instant Motions were filed more than 45 days later, on July 12, 2024. Therefore, the Motions are not timely as motions to compel further responses and the Court has no authority to grant them.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery responses include a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) The Motions are not accompanied by separate statements.

Based on these defects, the Court cannot order Defendant Young to serve further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, or Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

Plaintiff Christopher Hutchin’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, are DENIED.