Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04151, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04151    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 26

Gibson-Gardener v. Air Clean Environmental, Inc., et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Elizabeth Gibson-Gardner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Elizabeth Gibson-Gardner (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, negligence, and recovery on contractor’s license bond against Defendants Air Clean Environmental, Inc. aba Ace Environmental Demolition (“Defendant ACE”) and American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Defendant ACIC”) on June 30, 2023. Defendant ACE filed its answer on August 28, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions on May 31, 2024. The Motion was initially set for hearing on July 1, 2024, then continued multiple times to the current hearing date of September 26, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

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).) The parties agreed to extend Plaintiff’s time to bring the instant Motion through the end of May 2024. (Motion, Cade Decl., Exh. 3.) The Motion was timely filed on May 31, 2024.

Also, the Motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The supporting declarations demonstrate an effort by Plaintiff to obtain further responses from Defendant after service of the original responses. (Motion, Cade Decl., ¶¶5-6 and Exh. 3.) The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain 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 Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 05/31/24.)

Form Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 304.1, 324.1, and 326.1. Each of these interrogatories includes subparts. (Motion, Cade Decl., Exh. 1.) However, interrogatories with subparts are not permitted in cases assigned to the limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a)(1).) The purpose of the limitations set forth in section 94 is to “simplify and thereby reduce the cost of pursuing and defending these actions.” (Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 844, 854.) Asking the Court to compel further responses to discovery that is not permitted by statute is not in line with the legislative purpose set forth above.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Elizabeth Gibson-Gardner’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.