CIV527902 JOHN E. FERRY VS. LAURA J. WONS

JOHN E. FERRY Pro/per

RONDA J. WONS

Motion to compel

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff John Ferry’s Motion to Compel Defendant Laura Wons to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set Four) and Demand for Inspection of Documents (Set One), and for sanctions, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth below.

Defendant Wons primarily disputes the relevance of Ferry’s discovery requests. In her Opposition papers, Wons argues that whether or not Ferry was ever given notice of entry of the Judgment in the underlying Case No. CIV490434, that fact alone would not prove fraud, and Wons argues Ferry cannot possibly demonstrate the underlying Judgment was procured through fraud. While Wons may be correct, that fact does not render Ferry’s discovery requests irrelevant. Regardless of the ultimate merit of the Second Amended Complaint’s (SAC) first and second causes, discovery rights are broad. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2017.010; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 (“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”). The “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standard is applied liberally; doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting the discovery. Williams v. Superior Court, supra at 541. The Court normally does not assess the merits of the asserted claims in deciding whether to permit discovery. Here, the SAC appears to allege that Wons somehow fraudulently misled the Court on the day of trial, and thereafter misled the Court with respect to the proposed Judgment, and that Ferry was not properly served with the proposed Judgment. While Ferry’s claims may lack merit, the discovery requests here fall within the scope of permissible discovery.

Wons’s Opposition also argues Ferry’s entire Complaint (i.e., his contention that the underlying Judgment was procured through fraud) has no merit and should be dismissed. The only issue before the Court here is whether to compel further responses to Ferry’s discovery requests. If Wons contends Ferry’s Complaint has no evidentiary support, that argument can be made by the appropriate motion.

As to the Requests for Admission (Set Four), which involves only one Request, the motion is GRANTED. The objections lack merit and are OVERRULED. With 10 days of Notice of Entry of this Order, Wons shall serve a code-compliant, further response, without objections.

As to Request for Production No. 2, the motion is DENIED. While the dates of Wons’ response is not clear from the moving papers, Plaintiff appears to state that Wons served a response on 11-23-17, and thereafter never amended it. A motion to compel further responses must be filed and served no later than 45 days after service of the response. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.310(c). This deadline is jurisdictional. When a motion to compel a further response is untimely, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the motion except to deny it. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

As to Request for Production Nos. 3-4, the motion is GRANTED. The objections lack merit and are OVERRULED. With 10 days of Notice of Entry of this Order, Wons shall serve code-compliant, further responses, without objections.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

As stated previously, the Court believes the parties would benefit from participating in a mediation, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The parties are encouraged to do so, even if prior efforts in this regard were unsuccessful.