2017-00220721-CU-BC

Nolan Del Campo, Esq. vs. Lesley Pueyo

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Del Campo, Nolan

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is denied.

Plaintiff contends that defendant’s response to discovery was insufficient. Plaintiff received the allegedly inadequate discovery responses on May 10, 2018, but this motion was not filed until December 31, 2018. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses. Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Plaintiff’s declaration contains no facts showing that he met and conferred before filing this motion. (See CCP 2031.310(b). Plaintiff states that the delay in filing the motion was caused by two surgeries to his left hand and a medical emergency involving a legal assistant.

With respect to the timing of bringing a motion to compel further responses, Code of

Civil Procedure § 2031.310(a)-(c) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

[ . . . ]

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)-(c) (emphasis added).) Any motion to compel further responses must be made within 45 days after service of a response or a specific later date agreed to in writing by the parties. The statutory time “within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional” and the failure to file it within the required time frames “renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (emphasis added).)

In opposition to the motion, defendant correctly argues that plaintiff waived his right to compel further responses because this motion was filed more than 45 days after receiving the responses. CCP 2031.310(c).

Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions Defendant in the requested amount of $487.50 because this motion was filed without substantial justification. CCP 2031.310
(h).

Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the motion in the Reply does not moot the defendant’s request for sanctions.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Lawzilla Additional Information: It is Lawzilla’s understanding this tentative ruling became a final court order. This page has been locked and is no longer available for the “Own the Page” policy.