Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV47422, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47422    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

Defendant’s motions are DENIED.

Background

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiff LaJoyce Hale (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Sean Christopher Smith (Defendant), and DOES 1 through 20, asserting a cause of action for premises liability arising out of an incident that allegedly occurred on November 19, 2019.

Defendant filed his answer on January 13, 2021.

On the same day, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Kashani Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff served a written, verified response to the document request. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.) The response includes a mixture of objections, statements of inability to comply, and agreements to produce. No documents, however, were produced. (Id.)

Almost a year later, on March 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to serve initial responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One). The hearing was set for September 19, 2022. In the interim, however, on May 24, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue trial, and the hearing on the discovery motion apparently came off calendar.

Two motions are currently pending before the Court and set for hearing on November 20.

First, on April 19, 2023, Defendant refiled his motion to compel Plaintiff to serve initial responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One). The hearing was set for July 7. No opposition was filed. On July 7, 2023, the Court: (a) noted that because Plaintiff had served initial responses, the motion was not properly brought as a motion to compel initial responses; (b) treated the motion as a motion to compel further responses; and (c) continued the hearing to November 3 to allow the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).

An IDC was scheduled for October 13, but Plaintiff failed to appear.

The Court, on its own motion, then continued the hearing from November 3 to November 20.

Second, on October 16, 2023, Defendant filed a new motion to compel. The hearing on this motion was set for November 20. In this motion, Defendant again (incorrectly) seeks an order compelling an initial response to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

No opposition was filed.

Discussion

The two motions before the Court are duplicates. Both motions are denied.

To the extent that Defendant is seeking an order compelling initial written responses to his document requests, there is no basis for such an order: Plaintiff served initial written responses in March 2021. (Kashani Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)

To the extent that Defendant is seeking an order compelling further written responses to his document requests, the motion is untimely. The governing statute requires that a motion to compel further written responses to document requests must be filed within 45 days of service of the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The period to bring such a motion expired in early May 2021.

Defendant has not brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 to compel the production of documents where the responding party has agreed to comply. The Court expresses no views on the merits of any such motion.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions (filed on April 19 and October 16, 2023) are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.