Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV31256, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31256    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 30, 2023, Defendant Driven Staff LLC served Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Employment, and Demands for Production of Documents on Plaintiff Domingo Sebastian.  Plaintiff served objections, but no further responses.

On October 31, 2023, Defendant filed three motions to compel responses to discovery.

A.        The Motions Actually Seek to Compel Further Responses.

Although Defendant asserts that these motions are to compel responses and counsel had “no obligation” to meet and confer (Marko Decl. ¶ 5), the motions in fact seek to compel further responses.  Plaintiff served “objections, with no responses or verifications.”  (Marko Decl. ¶ 5.)  Objections are a code-compliant response.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a)(3), 2031.210, subd. (a)(3).)  A response containing only objections does not need to be verified by the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, 2031.250.)

Therefore, because Plaintiff did provide responses, Defendant should have filed a Separate Statement or followed the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)  This Department requires the parties to meet and confer on the substantive issues before filing a joint statement, following the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the court’s website).

Counsel is cautioned to follow the appropriate procedures for any future motions.

B.        The Motions are Timely.

In the absence of a written agreement between the parties, a motion to compel further responses to RFPs, interrogatories, and RFAs must be filed within 45 days after the insufficient response.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).)  This deadline is jurisdictional and “renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.”  (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that after the extension to August 23, 2023, “no further extension was requested or granted at that time.”  (Marko Decl. ¶ 5.)  Saturday, October 7, 2023 was 45 days later, making Monday, October 9 the deadline to file a motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.060.)  On October 7, 2023, Defendant’s counsel’s sent an email stating that she was “following up regarding plaintiff's responses,” that she “wish[ed] to avoid the burden of having to file a motion to compel and involve the court in discovery issues, if possible,” and that Plaintiff’s counsel should advise about the status of responses.  (Marko Decl., Ex. 2.)  On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel replied that she was “working on them and will provide them by Monday, October 16, 2023.”  The next day, Defendant’s counsel thanked her for the update.

Although not a clear grant of an extension, the Court finds that this is a sufficient agreement in writing to extend the time for Plaintiff to respond after the original August 23, 2023 extension.  Accordingly, the motions filed on October 31, 2023 are timely.

C.        The Unopposed Motions Are Granted.

Defendant does not include copies of Plaintiff’s responses.  However, Defendant’s motions set forth Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections that, according to Defendant, are the same for every request.  Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

The motions are GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Employment, and Demands for Production within 30 days.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART.  The Court will not award attorney fees for two hours of hearings for each motion.  (See Marko Decl. ¶ 7.)  The Court finds that a reasonable sanction is $615 per motion (3 hours at $185 plus $60 filing fee).  Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay a total sanction of $1,845 (for 3 motions) within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 30th day of November 2023