Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV04765, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04765    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 12, 2022                            TRIAL DATE NONE SET

CASE:                         Robert Ware v. Department of Public Social Services; County of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04765

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET FOUR)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Robert Ware

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles

CASE HISTORY:

• 02/08/21: Complaint filed.
• 06/01/21: First Amended Complaint filed
• 11/23/21: Second Amended Complaint filed
• 10/10/22: Third Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges discrimination, harassment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment arising from his employment with the Department of Public Social Services.

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Four) propounded to Defendant County of Los Angeles.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Four) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Four) propounded to Defendant County of Los Angeles.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

The Declaration of Robert Ware states that Plaintiff (in pro per) met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel telephonically regarding the outstanding discovery issues. (Declaration of Robert Ware ISO Mot. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has therefore complied with the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to demands for production must be served “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Defendant served its supplemental responses on October 6, 2022. (Ware Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 3.) This motion was served on November 12, 2022, 36 days later, and filed on November 14, 2022, a further two days after that. The motion is therefore timely.

Analysis

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to his Requests for Production (Set Four). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses as to requests No. 29 and 37. However, Defendant served further responses to these requests on November 17, 2022, after this motion was filed. (Declaration of Lisa A. Grigg ISO Opp. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief raising issues with the supplemental responses, and a review of the supplemental responses comparing them to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement shows that the responses appear to be sufficient on their face. The Court therefore finds that this motion has been mooted by Defendant’s supplemental production.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Four) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   December 12, 2022                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at  Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.