Lawzilla Additional Information:
It is our understanding the final order imposed $790 in sanctions against defendants. Per the San Mateo court records defendant is represented by attorney Sonia Ahmad of Bremer Whyte Brown and Omeara.

17-CIV-02460 SILVIO SALDANA VS. SHIVANI SUTARIA, ET AL.

SILVIO SALDANA SHIVANI SUTARIA
TREVOR L ROSS SONIA T. AHMAD

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendants Shivani Sutaria, Pavan Gupta, CC&R Capital Group, Inc., and Maria Realyvasquez (collectively “Defendants”) to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories from Plaintiff Silvio Saldana (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED.

A motion to compel further responses must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties agree in writing, or the propounding party waives any right to compel further response. (C.C.P. sec. 2030.300(c).) The court lacks jurisdiction to order further response where a motion to compel is not timely filed. (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)

There is no dispute that Plaintiff served responses to this discovery on November 14, 2017, and that this motion was filed on May 30, 2018. The parties dispute though, whether they agreed that April 30, 2018 was the deadline for filing discovery motions or providing further discovery responses. Plaintiff’s counsel’s email shows that he proposed a “mutual motion deadline for April 30, 2018 or even May 31, 2018?” (See Ross Decl., Exh. D.) Defendants’ counsel then agreed to the mutual extension to April 30, 2018. (Id.) However, it appears that Defendants’ counsel thought this deadline referred to providing discovery responses. (See Ahmad Decl.) Regardless though, section 2030.300(c) provides that a motion to compel further responses must be brought “on or before any specific later date to which the parties agree in writing…” Thus, even if Defendants’ counsel thought April 30, 2018 was the deadline for providing discovery responses instead of a deadline for discovery motions, Defendants have not established a specific later date after April 30, 2018 that the parties agreed to in writing, for bringing a motion to compel further responses. Thus, Defendants have not established that this motion is timely. Both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED