Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1220191, Date: 2022-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff William Malpica’s (“Plaintiff”) Motions to Compel Defendants Sanam Ladjevardi and Omid Ladjevardi’s Further Responses to Request for Production (“RFP”), Request for Admissions (“RFA”), Special Interrogatories (“Special Rogs”), and Form Interrogatories (“Form Rogs”), all Sets One, are DENIED.

Unless notice of a motion to compel further discovery 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 agreed on in writing by the parties, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(c) [RFP]; 2033.290(c) [RFA]; 2030.300(c) [rogs].)

The 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses is mandatory and jurisdictional.  (Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 [the court acts in excess of its jurisdiction by considering an untimely motion to compel further response to interrogatories]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406-1410 [applying rule to motions to compel production of documents].)  The deadline is jurisdictional insofar as it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.  (Sexton v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1410.)

Here, Defendants served responses to the at issue discovery by e-service on December 20, 2021.  (Exhs. B to Motions.)  The responses attached to the moving papers do not include verifications, but Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated January 26, 2022, indicates that “verifications from each Defendant were dated December 2, 2021.”  (See Exhs. C to Motions at pg. 1.)  Thus, Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter confirms that verifications were provided.  In addition, several of Defendants’ discovery responses with verifications attached are included as exhibits to Defendants’ oppositions.  (See Exh. A to ROA 63 and Ex. A to ROA 67.)  There are also no allegations that the responses were not properly verified.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions were subject to the 45-day motion to compel deadline.

There is no indication in the moving papers or the attached correspondence that the parties agreed in writing to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel.  (See Exhs. C and D to Motions.)

Thus, Plaintiff had 45 days from service of the verified responses, plus 2 court days, to serve notice of the motion to compel further responses.  (C.C.P. §§ 2031.310(c); 2033.290(c); 2030.300(c); 1013.)  Given that the responses were served on December 20, 2021, Plaintiff’s last day to serve notice of a motion to compel further responses was February 7, 2022.  All of these motions were filed and served on February 18, 2022, and are, thus, untimely.

As Plaintiff failed to timely file and serve proper notice of a motion to compel further responses to this discovery, Plaintiff has waived the right to compel any further responses.  Accordingly, the Motions are DENIED.

Counsel for Defendants to give notice.