Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV00176, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00176    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 12, 2024                        TRIAL DATE: August 6, 2024

CASE:                         Jessica Castillo v. County of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                 23STCV00176           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jessica Castillo

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on January 4, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she was denied benefits and promotions and disproportionately assigned field work as a nurse throughout 2020 on the basis of her race.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED as to requests Nos. 58, 59, and 61-63 and otherwise MOOT.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for production, and for sanctions.

Legal Standard

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.)

Analysis

            Plaintiff initially moved to compel further responses to requests for production Nos. 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 58, 59, and 61-63. However, since this motion was filed, Plaintiff states that Defendant has provided satisfactory supplemental responses to all requests save Nos. 58, 59, and 61-63.

As to the remaining responses, a motion to compel further response to a demand 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.) The parties agree that Defendant served initial responses on November 27, 2023, and that the parties agreed in writing to extend the deadline to compel further responses to January 30, 2024. (Declaration of Jessica M. Neighbors ISO Opp. Exhs. C-D.) The parties also agree that Defendant provided supplemental responses to other requests on January 25, 2024, but not to requests Nos. 58, 59, 61, 62, and 63. (Neighbors Decl. Exh. E.) Since no supplemental response was provided to any of the remaining requests at issue and there was no subsequent agreement to further extend the date to compel responses, the deadline to compel further responses to those requests remained January 30, 2024. This motion was filed on March 12, 2024 and is therefore untimely as to the remaining requests.

Sanctions

            Both parties request sanctions against their counterpart and opposing counsel for bringing or necessitating this motion. Although the Court might entertain a request for sanctions when the opposing party provides supplemental responses after the motion is brought, the Court declines to impose sanctions where the motion is untimely brought as to a subset of the requests to which it pertains.

//

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED as to requests Nos. 58, 59, and 61-63 and otherwise MOOT.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 12, 2024                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.