Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 16-00879117, Date: 2022-07-21 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff The People of the State of California’s Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (RPD) is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks to compel response to RPD Set One, No. 22 only. ROA 471, Separate Statement. Plaintiff propounded RPD, Set One, on February 10, 2017. ROA 473, Meade Decl., Ex. A. Defendants Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. served their responses on March 17, 2017. ROA 473, Meade Decl., Exs. B and C.
Pursuant to CCP § 2031.310(c), Plaintiff was required to serve its motion to compel within 45 days of any verified response or supplemental verified response or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. Otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c); Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) This 45-day limit is mandatory and jurisdictional (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-1528 [missing 45-day deadline waives right to compel further response to demand or compel inspection of any document that might have been identified in such further response].)
Plaintiff has not shown that there was any agreement to extend the 45-day deadline. Therefore, this Motion is untimely.
Plaintiff argues that it could not have brought this Motion within 45 days of Defendants’ responses to RPD No. 22 because the summary judgment motions in the MDL Action had not yet been filed. Plaintiff also contends that because Defendants agreed to produce everything that was produced in the MDL Action, it has a continuing obligation to produce the requested materials. Plaintiff further argues that the Court should compel the production because it could obtain these documents through a different discovery method. ROA 510, Reply, p. 6.
None of Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive. As discussed, the 45-day limit is jurisdictional, and once it has been waived, the Court has no authority to act. Additionally, under California law, there is no statutory duty to amend or supplement discovery responses when new information is obtained (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1328; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.050 [limiting supplemental demands for later acquired or discovery documents twice or on motion, for good cause shown]) and Defendants’ responses to RPD No. 22 do not demonstrate an intent or agreement to impose such a duty on Defendants.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to rely on RPD No. 80 (which is identical to RPD No. 22) to obtain later created documents, there is no remaining dispute about the requested documents as identified in Plaintiff's motion and duly filed Separate Statement. Both the motion and the Separate Statement expressly noted that Plaintiff was seeking to compel production of the summary judgment briefing materials from the MDL. There is no dispute that Defendants have agreed to provide those documents. Plaintiff improperly, in its Reply, further seeks to compel “all materials from the MDL Reply 2:18-20. The Court rejects Plaintiff's effort, for the first time in reply, to broaden the scope of its own motion. The Separate Statement is required to provide "all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue ." CRC 3.1345(c) . Here, the Separate Statement identified only the summary judgment materials as being in issue. (As stated by Plaintiff: “Accordingly, the Motion to Compel should be granted and the Defendants should be ordered to produce all summary judgment related materials filed in the MDL, including expert witness reports, declarations and exhibits, subject to the existing protective order. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.” Separate Statement 6:10-14.) The motion is accordingly denied on this ground also.
Plaintiff to give notice.