Case Number: BC596162 Hearing Date: June 25, 2018 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Responses by Defendant, Madison Brown, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents; Request for Sanctions, filed on 5/15/18 is DENIED.

The discovery and the motion before the court are untimely made. The last extension for discovery cut-off occurred on 11/14/17, when the court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue trial. The court ordered that all related discovery and expert disclosure cut-off dates would be based on the continued trial date of 5/22/18.

On 4/24/18, the court granted Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to withdraw. The trial was also continued to 8/21/18. The court’s order does not mention a continuance of all discovery cut-offs. Therefore, discovery cutoff ended on 4/23/18, (4/22/18 was a Sunday) which is 30 days before the last trial date of 5/22/18. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2024.020(a).

Motions concerning discovery are to be heard on or before the 15th day before trial. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2024.020(a). Therefore, this motion is untimely made. Assuming Plaintiff’s informal letter of 4/27/18 represents the Request for Production of Documents at issue, it is untimely served after discovery cutoff.

Plaintiff did not serve a formal, code-compliant Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s letter to opposing counsel informally requested certain transcripts and videos that were apparently not provided to her by her former counsel. Motion, Ex. B. Plaintiff asked for 13 categories of items.

Requests for Production of Documents must comply with Cal Code Civil Procedure §2031.030 which governs the form and content of the demand, and requires among other things, a reasonable time for inspection. Plaintiff’s Ex. B does not comply with Section 2031.030

Plaintiff submits a Separate Statement of Items re Request for Production of Documents. Motion, Ex. C. It includes Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, which is not the subject of this motion. It also refers to Requests for Production of Documents 33 and 34, which are not at issue here, along with other documents requests, however, there is no evidence Plaintiff served a code-compliant Request for those categories of documents either.

The motion now before the court includes an additional request for all communications concerning 15 different categories of individuals and facilities. Plaintiff has not shown that she served code-compliant requests before discovery cutoff for this additional set of information.

For all of these defects, the motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.