Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01147823, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Dien Tran (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in pro per, filed the following three motions against Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc.:

(1)      Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories from Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc.  (See ROA #  251, 257, and 270.)

(2)      Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission from Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc.  (See ROA # 255, 259, and 268.)

(3)      Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. and its Attorney McMillian.  (See ROA # 307 and 309.)

These motions are DENIED.

First, the moving papers filed in support of each motion are untimely.  Notices of motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for admission must be “given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing” or “the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c) and 2033.290, subd. (c).)

Here, the parties agree that Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. provided responses to the discovery at issue on March 31, 2022.  45 days after March 31, 2022 is Sunday, May 15, 2022, making the last day to serve and file the motions to compel further Monday, May 16, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.060, 2030.300, subd. (c) and 2033.290, subd. (c).)  While Plaintiff originally filed these motions on May 16, 2022, Plaintiff failed to serve the notices of these motions on May 16, 2022.  In fact, the notices of these motions were not served until on August 17, 2022 (see ROA # 249) and August 19, 2022 (see ROA # 263).

Thus, it appears that the notices of these motions were only served on August 17, 2022 after the court posted the tentative ruling for the August 18, 2022 hearing on the motions wherein the court tentatively ordered that the motions were denied because no proofs of service were provided for the moving papers.

Given the above, the moving papers do not comply with the timing requirements under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c) and 2033.290(c).  “[D]iscovery deadlines are mandatory and we have treated them as jurisdictional.”  (Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 322 [citing Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410].)  “Where a party does not obtain trial court relief from the statutory deadline, ‘failure to move for further answers within the statutory time forecloses further relief.’”  (Id. [citing O’Brien v. Superior Court (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 388, 391].)

Because the discovery motions were untimely, the related Motion for Sanctions necessarily fails as Plaintiff was not successful in bringing his discovery motions.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d) and 2033.290, subd. (d).)

In addition, Plaintiff’s moving papers also violate the court’s August 4, 2022 Minute Order, which orders Plaintiff “to follow the formatting requirements as described in California Rules of Court, rules 2.104 and 2.108.”  (ROA # 244.)

Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. requests sanctions in its oppositions to the three motions.  A request for sanctions shall be “accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)  Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc.’s requests for sanctions are not accompanied by the requisite declaration and therefore the requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. to give notice.