2017-00215267-CU-OE

Jacob Irvin vs. Eel River Family Farm

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Jeffrey A. Guillot)

Filed By: Chang, Calvin

Plaintiff’s separate Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories to Defendant Jeffrey Guillot and Defendant Tyler Johnson are GRANTED.

Defendants shall serve verified written responses to the discovery, without objections, on or before February 2, 2018. To the extent they have already done so, they are not required to serve identical verified responses again.

Plaintiff’s moving papers complain that Defendants failed to provide timely responses to Form and Special Interrogatories. In fact, according to Defendants, responses were served after Plaintiff’s motions to compel were filed and therefore Plaintiff’s motion should be deemed moot. The Court disagrees: although responses were apparently

served after the motion was filed, the motion is not moot. A motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (CCP section 1005.5.) Since Plaintiff made the motion before Defendants served any responses, Plaintiff is entitled to a ruling.The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of the responses served after the motion was made.

Improperly, Plaintiff’s reply brief attempts to convert these motions into motions to compel further responses to the written discovery. This request is denied. Plaintiff’s assertion that the responses are clearly incomplete and in bad faith is not well taken. A moving party may not make new and different contentions for the first time in reply. Indeed, since Defendants served responses – however purportedly deficient those responses may be – Plaintiff is required to file a motion to compel further responses if he believes that he is entitled to additional information. Even if the Court were to overlook the fact that Plaintiff raises the insufficiency of the responses received for the first time in reply, Plaintiff has failed to support any such request with evidence of attempt to meet and confer regarding the substance of the discovery requests, which precludes Plaintiff from moving to compel further responses at this time. (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) In addition, Plaintiff has not provided a separate statement in support of any motion to compel further discovery responses. (See California Rule of Court 3.1345(a).)