Case Number: EC065629 Hearing Date: May 25, 2018 Dept: A

Kevorkian v Public Storage

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

Calendar: 8

Case No: EC065629

Hearing Date: 5/25/18

Action Filed: 8/6/18

Trial: 6/4/18

MP:

Plaintiff Antarnik Kevorkian

RP:

Defendants Public Storage, Tony Borja, Juana Delira, and Aaron Delvalle

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to: (1) form interrogatories (“FROG”) and special interrogatories (“SROG”); (2) request for production of documents (“RPD”); and (3) requests for admission (“RFA”).

DISCUSSION:

This case arises from Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants are liable for the losses he suffered when the storage unit he was renting from Defendants was burglarized.

FROG, SROG, and RPD

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff propounded the FROG, SROG, and RPD on Defendants. On November 29, 2017, Defendants served their responses. On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD. On January 26, 2018, the Court denied the motions on the grounds that the motion was not timely served and Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with defense counsel.

Thereafter, on April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel further responses to the same FROG, SROG, and RPD that were at issue in the prior motions.

The filing of these motions are untimely as a motion to compel further responses must be brought within 45 days of receiving the verified or supplemental verified responses, or as otherwise agreed upon between the parties in writing. (CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).) An additional 5 days is added where the response is served by mail. (See CCP §1013.) The 45-day limitation to move to compel further responses as to interrogatories and document requests is jurisdictional, and courts are without authority to rule on untimely motions to compel except just to deny them. (See, e.g., Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Since Defendants provided responses on November 29, 2017, the latest Plaintiff could have filed his motions was January 13, 2018. The fact that he filed motions previously and the motions were denied does not enlarge the time for him to bring these motions.

Nevertheless, in opposition, Defendants state that will agree to serve further responses to the FROG and SROG to resolve this matter in good faith.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to compel further responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. The parties may, on their own, come to a resolution about the production of the discovery responses.

RFA

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFA fails for the same reasons as above.

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff propounded the RFA on Defendants. On November 29, 2017, Defendants served their responses. On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed this instant motion.

The filing of this motion to compel further is untimely pursuant to CCP §2033.290(c) (providing a 45-day period). Since Defendants provided responses on November 29, 2017, the latest Plaintiff could have filed his motion was January 13, 2018.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to compel further responses to the RFA. The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

RULING:

Deny the motions to compel further responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA.

Deny Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions based on untimeliness in filing the motions.