Case Number: KC067782 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Nobia Joyce, v. Shawn M. Millner, et al. (KC067782)

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Laurence Todd

Respondent: Plaintiff Nobia Joyce

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK

This is a partition action filed by Plaintiff Nobia Joyce (“Joyce”) against her daughter Shawn M. Millner, individually and as trustee for the Shawn Marie Millner Revocable Trust, and her daughter’s boyfriend, Laurence Todd. Joyce alleges that she purchased the subject property with her daughter in March 21, 1996 and that she owns 50% of the subject property, but that defendants have been attempting to remove her from the subject property. The complaint, filed 7/17/15, asserts causes of action for:

Partition (CCP §§ 872.210, 872.230, 872.820)

Accounting

Conversion

Elder Abuse

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

On 12/2/15, the court granted defendants’ motion to strike out plaintiff’s 4th-6th causes of action. On 12/8/15, Defendants Shawn M. Millner (in her individual capacity only) and Laurence Todd filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff. The First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), filed on 12/9/15, asserts causes of action for:

Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion

Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2

On 12/2/16, the court granted Joyce’s motion to vacate and set aside default on the FACC.

The Final Status Conference is set for 6/25/18. A jury trial is set for 7/3/18.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Laurence Todd (“Todd”) moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Nobia Joyce (“Joyce”) to provide responses, without objection, and responsive documents within 10 days to his Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One served on 2/23/18.

Plaintiff, in response, claims that the motion is untimely pursuant to CCP § 2024.020. “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” CCP § 2024.020(a) (Emphasis added). “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” CCP § 2024.020(b).

In this case, trial was originally set for 10/17/17. On 10/5/17, the trial date was vacated. On 12/7/17, trial was set for 7/3/18. There is no indication in the 12/7/17 minute order that all related pre-trial dates were to be governed by the new trial date. Todd has not filed a motion to reopen discovery.

The motion, then, is denied.