Case Number: BC659400 Hearing Date: January 18, 2019 Dept: 3

KAREN THELIN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LYNN SHARON GILGER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC659400

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Dept. 3

10:00 a.m.

January 18, 2019

Plaintiff propounded supplemental interrogatories and supplemental RPDs on Defendant on 8/07/18. Defendant served responses on 9/28/18. Plaintiff, believing the response to RPD 9 was insufficient, scheduled an informal discovery conference for 12/07/18. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute at that time, and Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses on 12/14/18.

Defendant correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that the motion is not timely. As Plaintiff concedes in the moving papers, a motion to compel further responses must be filed no more than 45 days after responses are served. CCP §2031.310. Plaintiff erroneously then concludes that the motion is timely because the motion is filed within ten days after the informal discovery conference. Plaintiff cites no authority for the position that an informal discovery conference extends the statutory time to file a motion to compel further responses.

Indeed, when the Court drafted its informal discovery conference rules, the Court was cognizant of the fact that the 45-day time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended absent the mutual agreement of the parties. See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685. The Court has no power to extend the time for filing a motion to compel further responses without the agreement of both parties. See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.

Because of this understanding, the Court specifically drafted its rules to ensure that motions be timely filed. See the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures (4/16/18), which states, “Scheduling or participating in an IDC does not automatically extend any deadlines imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure for noticing and filing discovery motions….If parties to not stipulate to extend the deadlines, the moving party may file the motion to avoid it being deemed untimely. However, the IDC must take place before the motion is heard…”

The motion to compel further responses is denied as untimely. The Court declines to consider or rule on any other issues posed between the parties.

Defendant seeks imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record in the amount of $1092.25. Sanctions are appropriate per CCP §2031.310(h). The Court has reviewed Defense Counsel’s declaration and finds the amount reasonable and supported by the declaration. The request is granted in full. Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through her attorney of record, in the total amount of $1092.25, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.