Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV13692, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV13692, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13692 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 6, 2024

CASE: RESPECT THE SHOOTER, LLC v. WARF Productions, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV13692

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM MANSOUR BENNOUNA x2

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFF

MOVING PARTY: Defendants WARF Productions, LLC and Johnny Ray

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/13/23

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract filed on April 25, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to perform according to the terms of a contract for services in connection with production of a film.

Defendants move to compel further responses to form interrogatories propounded to Cross-Defendant Mansour Bennouna and to Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Cross-Defendant Mansour Bennouna are DENIED.

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Plaintiff are DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to pay an additional $120 in filing fees within 5 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories From Mansour Bennouna

Defendants move to compel further responses to form interrogatories propounded to Cross-Defendant Mansour Bennouna.

Multiple Motions

Defendant improperly filed a single motion pertaining to two sets of discovery propounded to Cross-Defendant Bennouna.

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].) Defendant should have reserved two separate hearings for two separate motions to compel further responses.

Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $60 in filing fees within 5 days of the date of this order.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Timeliness

A motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental 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. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further responses. (Id.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

The proof of service attached to the discovery responses under penalty of perjury states that Cross-Defendant’s responses were served by mail on September 7, 2023, even though they were not received until September 14, 2023. (Declaration of Tiffany Scarborough ISO Mot. ¶ 5 Exhs. D-E.) Thus, the deadline to file this motion, accounting for a five-day extension for mail service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, was Friday, October 27, 2023. There is no evidence that the parties agreed to any extension of the filing deadline for this motion, and the motion was not filed until November 3, 2023. This motion is therefore untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Cross-Defendant Mansour Bennouna are DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Plaintiff

Defendants move to compel further responses to form interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

Multiple Motions

Defendant improperly filed a single motion pertaining to two sets of discovery propounded to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $60 in filing fees within 5 days of the date of this order.

Legal Standards

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Timeliness

The proof of service attached to the discovery responses under penalty of perjury states that Plaintiff’s responses were served by mail on September 7, 2023, even though they were not received until September 14, 2023. (Declaration of Tiffany Scarborough ISO Mot. ¶ 5 Exhs. D-E.) Thus, the deadline to file this motion, accounting for a five day extension for mail service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, was Friday, October 27, 2023. There is no evidence that the parties agreed to any extension of the filing deadline for this motion, and the motion was not filed until November 3, 2023. This motion is therefore untimely, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Plaintiff are DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Cross-Defendant Mansour Bennouna are DENIED.

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from Plaintiff are DENIED.

The Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $120 in filing fees within 5 days of the date of this order.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2023 ___________________________________

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.