This is on calendar for the Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents. On July 7, 2013, the Plaintiff served document demands on the Defendants. (Dec. Wong ¶ 3.) On August 30, 2013, the Defendants served their responses and objections to the discovery. (Dec. Herrera ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Where a response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. (CCP § 2031.310.) This motion must be served within 45 days after service of the response in otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP § 2031.010 demand. (See CCP §§ 2031.310(c); 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) The 45–day time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional”; meaning the court has no authority to grant a late motion). (See Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, the Defendants response was served on August 30, 2013, and the instant motion was filed on December 16, 2013—108 days later. The Defendants have raised this defect in their opposition, and the Plaintiff does not address the timeliness issue in its reply.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion is denied, as the court has no jurisdiction to rule on an untimely motion to compel further responses. The Defendants are to draft an order consistent with this ruling.