Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21STCV21293, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21293 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 9/20/22
Case #21STCV21293
2 MOTIONS TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Form
Interrogatories, Set 1 & Special Interrogatories, Set 1
&
Request for
Production of Documents, Set 1)
Motion filed on 4/22/22.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant HDL, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day
Care (erroneously sued and served as GMA Management Group, Inc. dba Pacoima
Adult Day Care)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Phyllis Ginolfi
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED:
(1) An order compelling Plaintiff to serve further
responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set
1. Additionally, Defendant requests
sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount
of $1,580.00.
RULING: The motions are denied.
Defendant HDL, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day Care (erroneously
sued and served as GMA Management Group, Inc. dba Pacoima Adult Day Care)
(Defendant) is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re
Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.
When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of
the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing
for Civil. See also CRC
3.1110(f)(4). Defendant has failed to
bookmark the declarations and exhibits attached to the motions. In the motion regarding interrogatories, Defendant
has bookmarked each interrogatory and response within the exhibits attached to
the motion. In the motion regarding
document requests, bookmarks appear for interrogatories and responses thereto,
but the bookmarks are not linked to anything.
Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result
in matters being placed off calendar,
matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with
these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of
sanctions.
Additionally, Defendant has improperly combined two
motions in one with regard to the interrogatories. In the future, separate motions, separate
reservations and separate fees are required for each discovery vehicle (i.e., a
separate motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories and a
separate motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories).
This action arises out of an alleged fall that occurred
while Plaintiff Phyllis Ginolfi (Plaintiff)
was a patient at
Defendant’s adult day care facility.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s negligence caused her fall and alleges
injuries and damages as a result. On
6/7/21, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and Right Choice In-Home
Care, Inc. for: (1) Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse and (2) Negligence. Defendant filed its Answer on 7/27/21.
On 8/31/21, Defendant served the subject discovery on
Plaintiff. (D’Andrea Decls.). Plaintiff failed to timely respond. Id.
After meet and confer efforts, Defendant received responses to the
subject discovery on 1/24/22. Id. Plaintiff found the responses to be deficient
as some were incomplete and evasive and others asserted objections which were
waived due the untimeliness of the responses.
Id. On 1/28/22, Defendant
sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter which went unanswered. Id.
On 3/10/22, the counsel for the parties spoke telephonically and agreed
to extend the deadline for filing the instant motion an additional 45 days, or
until 4/25/22. Id. Plaintiff never served further responses.
On 4/22/22, Defendant filed and served the instant motions
seeking: (1) an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions
against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of
$1,580.00; and (2) an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to
Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1.
Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and/or
Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $1,580.00.
The motions were originally set for hearing on 6/29/22
when the case was pending in Dept. 32.
After the case was transferred to Dept. F47, the hearings on the motions
were rescheduled for 9/20/22.
CCP 2030.300(c), with regard to motions to compel further
responses to interrogatories, provides:
Unless notice of this motion is
given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,
the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the
interrogatories. (emphasis added)
CCP 2031.310(c), with regard to motions to compel further
responses to document requests, provides:
Unless notice of this motion is
given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,
the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the
demand. (emphasis added)
Here, Defendant’s counsel states that it was during a
“teleconference” that “[P]laintiff’s counsel granted an additional 45 days by
which to file the instant motion” and “[b]y way of that extension, the instant
motion must be filed by April 25, 2022.”
(D’Andrea Decls. ¶18).
Defendant’s counsel does not state that the oral extension was confirmed
in writing and no evidence of any such writing is attached as an exhibit to the
motion. (See D’Andrea Decls. and
exhibits attached thereto). As such, the
instant motions are untimely and Defendant has waived its right to compel a
further response to the interrogatories and document requests. See CCP 2030.300(c); Vidal Sassoon,
Inc. (1983) 147 CA3d 681, 685; CCP 2031.310(c); Sperber (1994) 26 CA4th
736, 745. It has been held that the
45-day time limit on motions to compel further responses is
“jurisdictional.” See Sexton
(1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409-1410.