Corporate Recovery Associates LLC v. Kevin Ruelas, et al.
Case No: 18CV05060
Hearing Date: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Further Responses to Req. for Production, etc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to (i) Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); (ii) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (iii) Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Attorneys:

For Plaintiff: Edward Jason Dennis, et al. (Lynn, Pinker, et al. – Dallas, TX)

For Defendant Shaw: Timothy J. Trager, et al., (Reicker, Pfau, et al.)

Ruling: Defendant Mark Shaw’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is moot and the Court orders it off calendar.

Background

On October 15, 2018, plaintiff Corporate Recovery Associates, LLC, as Trustee for the Liquidating Trust of Channel Technologies Group, LLC (“Trustee”) filed its complaint against defendants Kevin Ruelas, Pierre Chao, John Mei, Lynn Chen, Christopher Holmes, Mark Shaw, Charles Miller, and David Oldham. On April 12, 2019, plaintiff filed its first amended complaint.

MSC is scheduled for March 6 and trial for April 7, 2020.

Motion to Compel

Defendant Shaw moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories. Shaw has filed three separate statements in support of the motion.

First, Shaw has not paid sufficient filing fees. “Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order. An application for an order is a motion.” CCP § 1003. The filing fee for a discovery motion is provided in Gov’t Code § 70617(a)(4). “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), (d), and (e) apply separately to each motion or other paper filed.” Gov’t Code § 70617(f). While there is some ambiguity regarding the fees for combined motions, where, as here, there is recognition of the need for individual separate statements to support three motions, there are three motions for filing fee purposes. Only one fee has been paid.

Ordinarily, the Court would continue the hearing on these motions for the filing fees to be paid. However, plaintiff’s response indicates that supplemental responses have been served. Therefore, the motion is moot. The Court is not in a position to assess supplemental discovery responses that have not been subjected to the meet and confer process and full briefing. Therefore, the Court orders defendant Mark Shaw’s motion to compel further responses to discovery – off calendar.