Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV21020, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21020 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 8, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT
SET
CASE: Claudia Yareli Paredon Nieto v. The Haas
Building, et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV21020 
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Broadway Exchange Building, L.P.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on
eCourt as of 4/3/24.
CASE
HISTORY:
·
08/31/23: Complaint filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an employment discrimination action. Plaintiff alleges that she
was subjected to extensive sexual harassment, assault, and battery, and was
wrongfully terminated.
Defendant Broadway Exchange
Building, L.P. moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 11.1,
and for sanctions.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant
Broadway Exchange Building, L.P.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories is DENIED as untimely.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant Broadway Exchange
Building, L.P. moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 11.1,
and for sanctions.
//
Legal Standard
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.)
Timing:
A motion to
compel further responses to interrogatories 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. §
2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton
v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410
Plaintiff’s
responses that are at issue in this motion were served by email on Defendant on
January 11, 2024. (Declaration of Lisamarie McDermott ISO Mot. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Accounting
for two additional court days for electronic service pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1010.6, the deadline to file this motion was February 27,
2024, 45 days plus two court days later. Defendant’s motion was not served
until March 1, 2024, and not filed until March 4, 2024. Defendant’s motion is
therefore untimely, and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear it.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
Defendant Broadway Exchange Building, L.P.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as untimely.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 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.