Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV19802, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19802    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Vincent Bowman (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against defendants Baldwin Hills Multifamily LLC and WinnResidential (“Defendants”) on August 18, 2023.

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a single motion to compel both Defendants to respond to his Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, Set One.

On June 28, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer with the Court in the form of an informal discovery conference. The Court noted that Plaintiff had reserved an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) date for July 11, 2024 and confirmed in his IDC statement that discovery responses had been received since he filed his motion. The Court also informed Plaintiff that he had to use the online reservation system to continue the pending motion to a post IDC date.

The parties appeared for the IDC on July 11, 2024. According to Plaintiff, the Court admonished Defendants on July 11, 2024 that their responses were not acceptable and ensured the parties had correct contact information for each other in order to meet and confer. (Mot., 3:8-12.) The minute order from the IDC reflected that the parties had agreed, and the Court ordered, that, on or before August 8, 2024, Defendants would serve supplemental responses to the special interrogatories and the requests for production.

Plaintiff asserts he attempted to contact Defendants’ counsel shortly after the IDC, but no one returned his phone calls. (Id., 3:14-18.)

On January 7, 2025, rather than pursue the original motion to compel that Plaintiff had filed, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to his Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One. Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service indicating he served Defendants’ counsel by U.S. Mail on January 7, 2025.

Defendants filed no opposition.[1]

Discussion

            1. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff frames his motion as a motion to compel initial responses to discovery. (See Mot., 3:24-4:11 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) However, it is in fact a motion to compel further responses. (Bowman Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit  A.) Plaintiff states that Defendants served responses to his special interrogatories and requests for admissions (no mention of requests for production) five months after he served them on January 3, 2024. He attaches as part of his Exhibit A, a copy of Defendants’ verified responses to the special interrogatories which contain substantive responses as well as objections. The responses are dated May 9, 2024 and the proof of service attached shows that they were served by mail on that same date. There is no indication as to when the responses to the requests for production were served.

Motions to compel further rather than initial responses to interrogatories and requests for production are governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, respectively. Both sections state:

“Unless notice of [a motion to compel further responses] is 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, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response [to an interrogatory or document demand].”

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).)

Assuming that Defendants served their responses to Plaintiff’s request for production at the same time that they responded to the special interrogatories, Plaintiff’s 45-day deadline for filing a motion to compel further expired long before Plaintiff filed this motion on January 7, 2025. The deadline for a motion to compel further discovery responses is jurisdictional. (See Weinstein v. Blumberg, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 322, fn.3; see also O'Brien v. Superior Court(1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 388, 391.) Consequently, the Court lacks power to grant Plaintiff’s motion.

2. Plaintiff’s motion is substantively and procedurally defective.

The California Rules of Court require a party moving for further responses to concurrently file a Separate Statement outlining his requests and the purported deficient responses and the reasons why further response should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff has not done so.

A motion to compel further response to a demand for production also requires that the moving party show good cause why production should be compelled (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1)); Plaintiff has made no such showing.

Plaintiff has not satisfied necessary procedural requirements.

            3. Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions.

Plaintiff is granted no sanctions, as his motion was unsuccessful.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. No sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 28, 2025                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court