SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On May 25, 2023, Defendant Jack Swank (“Decedent”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Stephen Harris (“Plaintiff”) to provide responses to supplemental form interrogatories, set one, and supplemental requests for production (“RPD”) set one. Preliminarily, since the filing of the instant motion, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Decedent’s personal representative, Judith Lorraine Swank (“Defendant”), in place of Decedent. (Min. Order, Aug. 29, 2023.) Therefore, the Court will not consider arguments related to standing.  

On April 14, 2023, Decedent propounded supplemental form interrogatories, set one, and supplemental RPDs, set one, on Plaintiff. On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff served objections to the supplemental discovery requests. Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to serve responses because Plaintiff served objections only.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends before Decedent passed away, Decedent already propounded supplemental discovery requests, and Plaintiff served responses to the initial set of supplemental discovery requests. Plaintiff argues he is not obligated to respond to what is actually a second set of supplemental discovery requests. Furthermore, Plaintiff avers that responses to the second set were due after the discovery cut-off date.  

In reply, defense counsel provides he re-filed his declaration with exhibits because it was unclear if the exhibits to the original motion were kept with the moving papers.  

 

II. Discussion 

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)    

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production twice before the initial trial date, and subject to the time limits of discovery proceedings. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (b), 2031.050, subd. (b).) In terms of addressing Plaintiff’s contention that supplemental discovery requests had previously been propounded and responded to, Defendant is entitled to propound a second set. However, Defendant did not reply to Plaintiff’s contention that the due date of the second set of supplemental discovery requests, propounded on April 14, 2023, were due after the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff avers that discovery closed on May 4, 2023 based upon the trial date of June 2, 2023. Nonetheless, Plaintiff served responses to the second set of supplemental discovery requests in the form of objections. Rather than a motion to compel, in which no responses (whether it be substantive or objections only) were served, the appropriate motion should have been a motion to compel further. Nonetheless, at issue is the discovery cut-off deadline.  

The Court reviewed the docket. The trial date and all discovery and motion cut-off dates were initially based upon a June 8, 2022 trial date. (Min. Order, Nov. 9, 2020.) However, at a FSC, the June 8, 2022 trial date was vacated and a TSC set. (Min. Order, May 25, 2022.) At the TSC, the trial date of June 2, 2023 was set, and all discovery and motion related dates were based on this date. (Min. Order, Jan. 28, 2023.) Since then, the trial date has been continued four times; the Court did not explicitly continue any discovery-related dates. Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020(b).) At the August 17, 2023 FSC, the Court advanced the instant motion to compel from March 27, 2024 to September 27, 2023 so that it may be heard prior to the current trial date of October 9, 2023. (Min. Order, Aug. 17, 2023.) However, at no point was discovery re-opened. Accordingly, Plaintiff had no obligation to respond to discovery requests due after the discovery cut-off date, on which the instant motion is premised on.  

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED.  

 

III. Sanctions 

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Defendant sought to compel responses to discovery due after the discovery cut-off deadline. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against defense counsel is GRANTED and imposed against defense counsel only in the reduced amount of $415.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.