2015-00180669-CU-BC

Michael Tomada vs. Lino Catabran

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form Interrogatories 2) Production of Documents

Filed By: Goodrow, Russell L.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendants Michael Tomada & Greenstone Biomass Research’s Motion to Compel “Supplemental” Responses to Plaintiff/Crosss-defendants’ Form Interrogatories directed to Linda Catabran and to Requests for Production propounded to Linda Catabran, LCAT, LLC, and River City Cooperative Corporation is denied.

This motion purports to be a motion to compel “supplemental” responses, when it is actually appears to be a motion to compel further responses to discovery. The motion is confusing, fails to cite applicable authority, and contains contradictory statements. If plaintiff is contending that responses served were inadequate or in violation of a court order, the proper motion to file is a motion to compel further responses accompanied by the required separate statement as required by CRC 3.1345 or a motion to compel compliance with a court order.

CRC 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. There was no separate statement accompanying this motion. The separate statement filed with the Reply is untimely and is not being considered as it must be served at the time of the moving papers in compliance with CCP 1005(b).

The separate statement required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 must be full

and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response, and the reasons why further response should be compelled. A motion to compel further responses will be denied if no separate statement in full compliance with the rule accompanies the motion. Captioning a motion to compel further answers with a different moniker does not obviate the Court Rule requirement.

As noted by defendant, the discovery Plaintiff complains of was the subject of Plaintiff’s June 21, 2018 order on a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (RJN No. 1-2) The Court ruled on that motion on June 21, 2018. (RJN No. 2) The Court ruling stated in part:

With regard to the responses to the Form Interrogatories and the Request for Production of Documents, the motion to compel responses is granted. If Defendants have not already provided verified responses at the time this ruling is issued, then they are ordered to do so, without objections, on or before July 6, 2018. If Defendants have served verified responses prior to the issuance of this order that are compliant with the foregoing identified code sections, then the responses may include appropriate objections. Minute Order June 21, 2018.

In this case, defendants served responses to the discovery on June 20, 2018. Service of papers is complete at the time of deposit in the mail CCP 1013(a). Therefore, defendant contends that pursuant to the above language in the Court order the defendants objections were properly asserted.

If plaintiff contends that the responses were improper, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses accompanied by the required separate statement. If plaintiff contends that the June 21, 2018 court order was violated, the defendant may bring a motion to compel compliance with the court order.

Counsel for plaintiff is directed to pay the $60 filing fee that is owed, as the clerk’s notation in the margin of the motion states he paid only $60 although he seeks orders concerning both form interrogatories and requests for production. Regardless of whether each motion or matter is heard at a single hearing or at separate hearings, the filing fees required by subdivisions (a), (c), and (d) apply separately to each motion or other paper filed. Government Code section 70617(e).

Sanctions are ordered to be paid by plaintiff to defendants Linda Catalbran, LCAT, LLC and River City Cooperative Corporation in the reasonable amount of $1,400 on the ground the motion was filed without substantial justification. The sanctions awarded are to compensate opposing counsel for the inordinate amount of time it took to decipher and interpret the moving papers and accompanying 36 exhibits.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.