Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC713113, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713113    Hearing Date: August 3, 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

MOTIONS

            Plaintiff Jenifer Galvez moves to compel responses from defendants Dennis Davenport (“Davenport”) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to Supplemental Demand for Later Acquired or Discovered Documents, set one (“Supp. RPD”) and response from Costco to Supplemental Interrogatory, set one (“Supp. ROG”). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions.  Defendants have not file oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Similarly, 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).)  

Here, Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests on Defendants on November 18, 2021, electronically.  Defendants’ responses were thus due by December 21, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendants.  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants have failed to serve timely responses to the Supp. RPD and Costco has failed to serve timely responses to the Supp. ROG.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for sanctions to be procedurally defective, however, because Plaintiff failed to include any such request for sanctions in her notice of motion, as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought”]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).)  The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendants’ responses to the Supp. RPD and Costco’s responses to the Supp. ROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Defendants to serve verified responses to the Supp. RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, and Costco to serve verified responses to the Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.