Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV25206, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25206    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiff Francisco Rodriguez (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Francisco Cervantes Magana (Defendant) to Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One (RPD).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Without attaching the RPD along with a corresponding proof of service, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Esteban Espinosa-Ulloa (Plaintiff’s Counsel), states in his declaration that Plaintiff served the RPD on Defendant on September 9, 2021.  (Declaration of Esteban Espinosa-Ulloa, ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff’s Counsel fails to indicate the manner in which Defendant was served, however states that the discovery was initially due on October 11, 2021.  (Declaration of Esteban Espinosa-Ulloa, ¶ 5.)  Defendant’s Counsel, Paul N. Jacobs (Defendant’s Counsel), states in his declaration that Plaintiff granted an extension to Defendant to respond to discovery requests to October 23, 2021.  (Declaration of Paul N. Jacobs , ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) Defendant served his response to the RPD on October 22, 2021.  (Declaration of Esteban Espinosa-Ulloa, Exhibit 9.)

As Defendant has responded to the RPD and Plaintiff finds Defendant’s responses unsatisfactory, Plaintiff’s appropriate remedy is to move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 - which Plaintiff has not done here. Further, as Plaintiff does not contend that Defendant’s responses were either not served in the first instance or untimely, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions to be without merit.

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RPD.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.