Case Number: 19STLC06001 Hearing Date: January 21, 2020 Dept: 26

Willis v. Sene, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Cheikh S. Sene and Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc.’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Written Discovery And Request For Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26, AS DETAILED IN THE COURT’S ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Sage Willis (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Cheikh S. Sene (“Defendant Sene”) and Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc. (“Defendant Ceva”) on June 24, 2019. Defendants filed the instant discovery motion on December 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed her opposition on January 8, 2020 and Defendants replied on January 13, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

Discussion

Improper Combination of Multiple Discovery Motions

Defendants’ discovery motion is confusing as it attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. The Notice of Motion states that Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to furnish further responses to three separate discovery requests: (1) Defendant Ceva’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Defendant Sene’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Defendant Sene’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. But the separate statement does not address three separate discovery requests. Rather, it includes only one set of Form Interrogatories. Without more information, the Court declines to assume whether both Defendants seek responses to the same Form Interrogatories or that the separate statement is incomplete. The moving party must make its requests for relief clear to the Court.

The statute under which Defendants move is Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which states in relevant part: “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further response . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Based on this language, it is clear the Civil Discovery Act contemplates that the motions filed under these statutory provisions will be brought separately by each party that propounded discovery and as to each separate set of discovery propounded.

Also, filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Indeed, here, Defendants filed the instant discovery motion as a single “Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery)” when it is in fact it should be reserved as three separate Motions to Compel Further Responses.

Finally, combining discovery motions allows the moving party (or parties in this case) to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendants have only paid one filing fee for what should have been reserved as three separate motions.

Based on the foregoing, and the Court will rule only on the Motion as to Defendant Ceva’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. The hearing on Defendant Sene’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One are continued to MARCH 24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 25 AND ARE TO BE RESERVED AS TWO (2) SEPARATE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT SENE IS TO FILE AND SERVE A REVISED SEPARATE STATEMENT CLEARLY ADDRESSING THE INTERROGATORIES AT ISSUE. ALSO AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT SENE IS TO PAY TWO ADDITIONAL MOTION FILING FEES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN DEFENDANT SENE’S MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Defendant Ceva’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Defendant Ceva contends that it served the subject Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff by mail on August 22, 2019, such that responses were due by September 27, 2019. (Motion, p. 3:13-15; Brandon Decl., ¶3.) The Form Interrogatories propounded by Defendant Ceva were not attached to the declaration in support of the Motion. (See Motion, Brandon Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) The only Form Interrogatories attached are those propounded by Defendant Sene. (Ibid.) The correct Form Interrogatories are attached to the Reply in support of the Motion. (Reply, Exh. A.) Plaintiff served responses to the Form Interrogatories on October 25, 2019 by mail. (Motion, Brandon Decl., Exh. B.) Given that Plaintiff’s responses were served on October 25, 2019 by mail, any notice of the motion to compel further responses was due not more than 50 days later, or by December 14, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) As December 14, 2019 was a Saturday, notice of the instant Motion was timely given on the next Court day, December 16, 2019.

Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 107.1, which asks her to itemize her property damage, was “???”. Plaintiff’s substantive arguments are that the Motion does not demonstrate she was served with Form Interrogatories where the box for No. 107.1 was checked. The Court agrees but finds that this was corrected by the evidence attached with the Reply, as noted above. Plaintiff then argues that it would be improper for the Court to consider new evidence with the Reply because she would be deprived of the opportunity to respond. While Plaintiff’s opposition clearly anticipated the new evidence attached to the Reply, it would be in the interests of justice to give Plaintiff additional time to respond to the set of Form Interrogatories attached for the first time to the Reply. Finally, Plaintiff argues that because the time to bring a motion to compel further expired 45 days after service of her responses, the Court now lacks jurisdiction to order further responses based on late-provided evidence. The Court finds no authority for such a proposition given that notice of the Motion was timely given. The case on which Plaintiff relies—Vidal Sasson, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685—involved an original motion brought after the statutory deadline, which is not the situation here. Defendant Ceva brought the instant Motion within the statutory deadline and consideration of further evidence with the reply, especially where Plaintiff is given time to respond, has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction to order further responses.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant Ceva’s Form Interrogatories, Set One is continued to MARCH 24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE RAISED ON REPLY. THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, EXCLUDING DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS, MAY NOT EXCEED FIVE (5) PAGES. NO FURTHER BRIEFING IS PERMITTED.

Moving party to give notice.