Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2020-00038780-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Discovery Hearing 37-2020-00038780-CU-WT-CTL WOOD VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 06/29/2023

Plaintiff's (Amended) Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents or Things, Set Three and Requests for Sanctions is DENIED. (ROA 124.) At the outset, the court notes Plaintiff initially filed his motion on June 27, 2023. (ROA 118.) Without explanation, Plaintiff filed an 'amended' motion two days later on June 29, 2023. (ROA 124.) The court has considered only the 'amended' motion and the initially filed supporting declaration. (ROA 120, 124.) The court denies the motion on the grounds it is both untimely and procedurally defective.

As to timeliness, a motion to compel further responses must be filed within 45 days after responses are served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) Here, Defendant served its objections-only responses by electronic service on April 17, 2023. Objections-only responses do not require verification. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.250(a).) An objection to a request for production is a Code-compliant response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a)(3).) Plaintiff's motion was not filed until 71 days later on June 27, 2023.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is untimely. The 45-day motion time limit is mandatory and 'jurisdictional'; the court has no authority to consider an untimely motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Plaintiff's motion is also procedurally defective for at least two reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement, which is required by court rules. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3).) Second, although Plaintiff did file a supporting declaration with his initial papers, it fails to set forth facts of any meet and confer efforts he made prior to filing his motion. Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).) The court notes Plaintiff also filed an (Amended) Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions (Set One), an (Amended) Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (Set Two), and an (Amended) Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Special Interrogatories (Set One). (ROA 121, 122, 123, 125.) The notices of motion indicate these motions will be heard on September 29, 2023.

However, no hearing reservation was made for these three additional motions. 'Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.' (San Diego Superior Court Rules, Rule 2.1.19(A).) Accordingly, these motions will not be heard.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2989129  13