Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 21STCV14165, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV14165, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14165 Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production 77-79 is DENIED as untimely.

Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)¿

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RPD”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)

As an additional requirement pertaining only to requests for production, the moving party must first offer facts demonstrating: “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448; see also Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Further, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatory No. 45 (part of Defendant’s Special Interrogatories - Set Two) and Requests for Production No. 77, 78, 79 and 82 (Part of Defendant’s Request for Production - Set Three), and for sanctions.

As in initial matter, in the reply, Defendant states that Plaintiff provided further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 45, and RPD No. 82, and withdraws the motion as to those requests.

Next, Plaintiff contends that Bailey failed to have its motion heard before the discovery cut-off date of July 10, 2023. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.020(a) (stating discovery motions must be “heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”)

However, Defendant argues that the hearing is more than 15 days before the continued trial date. Code of Civil Procedure section 559(a) states: “Notwithstanding any other law and unless ordered otherwise by a court or otherwise agreed to by the parties, a continuance or postponement of a trial date extends any deadlines that have not already passed as of March 19, 2020, applicable to discovery…. The deadlines are extended for the same length of time as the continuance or postponement of the trial date.” This rule was enacted in September 2020, and remains in effect until August 27, 2023 (180 days after California’s Covid-19 state of emergency was lifted). (See Code Civ. Proc. § 559(b).)

Defendant argues that the prior trial date was continued by fourteen days to August 7, 2023, and thus, the discovery deadlines were continued for the “same length of time as the continuance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 559(a).)

However, the parties filed a stipulation to continue trial on July 12, 2023. (See 7/12/2023 Stipulation.) As a result, trial was continued to April 8, 2024. That agreement states that all other related court deadlines and dates remain unchanged. Therefore, it appears the parties agreed to close discovery. This stipulation to continue trial supersedes the prior continuance, and because the parties otherwise agreed to close discovery, Code of Civil Procedure section 559(a) does not apply.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion as untimely.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production 77-79 is DENIED as untimely.