Case Number: BC615923 Hearing Date: August 09, 2018 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production and Requests for Admission
Moving Party: Plaintiff Cohen IP Law Group
Resp. Party: None
The motion is DENIED
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff commenced this action on 04/04/16 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) account stated; (4) services rendered; and (5) quantum meruit.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 for an Order compelling defendants to provide further responses to the Requests for Production and Requests for Admission, or, in the alternative, to have the Requests for Admission deemed admitted on the ground that no responses were served. (See Notice of Motion, p. 1:22-26.)
Relevant Law
Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2033.290(b).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith. (See Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.)
The notice of motion must be served within 45 days after service of the responses in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1013)); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) However, the parties can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c), 2033.290(c).)
Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement providing all information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses at issue. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a), (c).) “Failure to include the separate statement required by CRC 3.1345 is ground for denial of [the] motion.” (Edmon & Karnow, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) 8:1151.1.)
Discussion
Plaintiff’s motion suffers from numerous procedural defects.
First, the motion is made only pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which only provides authority for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Accordingly, the motion fails to make any valid request with respect to the Requests for Admission.
Second, the motion is not accompanied by a separate statement, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1)-(2).
Third, the motion is not timely. Plaintiff acknowledges that defendants served their responses to the subject discovery requests on 03/12/18. (See Motion, p. 3:11-12.) Plaintiff appears to have engaged in the meet-and-confer process in good faith and explains that it “provided Defendant’s notice of its intent to file this motion on numerous occasions within the required 45 day window.” (See Motion, p. 1:26-28.) However, this is not the rule. The motion itself must be served and filed within 45 days of receipt of the discovery responses. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The deadline may be extended by a written agreement between the parties. (Ibid.) Plaintiff does not allege that any such written agreement exists. The motion was served and filed on 07/17/18 — a full 4 months after defendants served their responses.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.