Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00003 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00003, Date: 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00003 Hearing Date: December 29, 2022 Dept: SEC

KIMURA v. HARIO USA, INC.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00003

HEARING: 12/29/22

JUDGE: LEE W. TSAO

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant HARIO USA, INC.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Special Interrogatories; and Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendant improperly filed three motions combined into one. In the future, Defendant is ORDERED to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. Be that as it may, in the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court will exercise its discretion to hear all three motions at this time.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A state of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection… fails to serve a timely response to it…(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection… is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance…. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (emphasis added.)” (CCP §2031.300(a).)

“If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response… (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings… as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance…. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (emphasis added.)” (CCP §2030.290(a).)

The Motion is GRANTED in full. Defendant has properly put in issue the objections and deficiencies in Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery at issue. As of December 27, 2022, no substantive Opposition to the Motion has been filed and the Court is unaware of whether any supplemental responses have been served. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s current responses and finds that they are evasive, incomplete, and inadequate. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce further documents and further verified responses without objections to each RPD, FI, and SI identified by no later than 15 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

In the body of the Motion, Defendant indicates that sanctions will be sought. However, no such sanctions are actually requested. Importantly, the request for sanctions is not noticed in the Notice of Motion and there is no supported sanctions request in Counsel’s Declaration filed in support of the Motion. Sanctions are DENIED.