Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20GDCV00924, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00924    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On January 20, 2023, Defendant Anil D. Mall (“Defendant”) filed this motion to compel further responses without objections by plaintiff Corona Medical, Inc. dba Advanced Care Pharmacy (“Plaintiff”) to Special Interrogatories (Set Two).  The Court addresses at the outset whether this motion is timely. 

Notice of a motion for an order compelling a further response must be “given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding and the responding party have agreed in writing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)  On December 1, 2022, defense counsel Gardenia M. Montero requested an extension to her client’s deadline to move for an order compelling further responses to December 16, 2022.  (Opp., Ex. 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel, Natalya Y. Byzova Kavanaugh, agreed to this new deadline.  (Ibid.)  The parties agree that there is no other written agreement to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses. 

Defendant relies on C.C.P. section 2016.080(c)(2) and an unidentified local rule to argue that the deadline to file this motion was tolled because an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was scheduled for February 8, 2023, and the deadline is extended to 2 weeks after the IDC.  (Motion, 2:24-3:5.)  Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because the extension to file the motion was only extended until December 16, 2022, and this motion was filed on January 20, 2023. 

Defendant’s arguments are not persuasive.  CCP 2016.080, which has been repealed since January 1, 2023, allows a party to request an IDC and requires a party to “file a declaration described in Section 2016.040 [a meet and confer declaration] with the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.080, subd. (b).)  If a court grants or orders an IDC pursuant to a party’s request, “the court may toll the deadline for filing a discovery motion or make any other appropriate discovery order.”  (Id., subd. (c)(2).) 

Here, Plaintiff points out that while defense counsel reserved a date for a possible IDC through the Court’s reservation system, no request for an IDC with the Court was filed as instructed in the statute.  (Opp., 4:16-20.)  The Court has also checked its records and sees no evidence that any request for an IDC was lodged.  Because no IDC was granted or ordered, the Court did not issue any order tolling Defendant’s deadline to file the motion to compel further.  Lastly, Defendant also does not identify the specific court rule or “Discovery Resolution” which purportedly grants an automatic extension to the deadline to file a motion to compel by two weeks.  

The Court concludes that the motion is untimely and Defendant has “waive[d] any right to compel a further response.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)  As a result, the Court lacks the authority to rule on this motion other than to deny it.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403.) 

A monetary sanction shall be imposed against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) 

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that she spent 7 hours drafting the opposition brief and supporting papers and anticipates spending another hour reviewing the reply papers and 3 hours preparing for and attending the court hearing.  With an hourly rate of $400, Plaintiff’s counsel requests $4,400 total in fees. 

The amount requested by Plaintiff is excessive in light of the relatively short opposition brief, minimal number of exhibits, and lack of any response to Defendant’s separate statement.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed on Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,000, consisting of 5 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $400, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 4th day of April, 2023