Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/21/2020 at 06:04:53 (UTC).

MARSHALL MCQUEEN, JR VS OFFICE DEPOT

Case Summary

On 04/30/2019 MARSHALL MCQUEEN, JR filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OFFICE DEPOT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4237

  • Filing Date:

    04/30/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MCQUEEN MARSHALL JR

Defendant

OFFICE DEPOT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SELTZER IRA

Defendant Attorney

HERZOG JONATHON

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

11/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/22/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motions to Compel

9/10/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motions to Compel

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 10/01/2020

10/1/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 10/01/2020

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Further Continuances of Defendant Office Depot, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents No. 3, Se

10/9/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Further Continuances of Defendant Office Depot, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents No. 3, Se

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

10/26/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opp to MTCs

7/6/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opp to MTCs

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

7/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuances of Defendant Office Depot, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents No. 3, Sets One,

3/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuances of Defendant Office Depot, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents No. 3, Sets One,

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

2/7/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/7/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

2/7/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

11/7/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/31/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer - Answer

7/31/2019: Answer - Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/30/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/30/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

4/30/2019: Complaint - Complaint

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Marshall McQueen, JR on 04/30/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 11/19/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 11/19/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 11/19/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 11/19/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Why Complaint Should Not be Dismissed scheduled for 11/19/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 11/19/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketJury Trial scheduled for 04/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 11/19/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/03/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 11/19/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Why Complaint Should Not be Dismissed scheduled for 11/19/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 10/26/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/19/2020 11:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 11/07/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Marshall McQueen, JR (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Office Depot (Defendant); As to: Marshall McQueen, JR (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Office Depot (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Marshall McQueen, JR (Plaintiff); As to: Office Depot (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Marshall McQueen, JR (Plaintiff); As to: Office Depot (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Marshall McQueen, JR (Plaintiff); As to: Office Depot (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04237    Hearing Date: November 19, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., November 19, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME McQueen v. Office Depot, Inc. COMP. FILED: 04-30-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC04237 DISC. C/O: 03-16-21

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: 02-31-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-15-21

 

PROCEEDINGS    (1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, NO. 3, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Office Depot, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.300; 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor-in-interest is ordered to provide further responses to Request for Production, No. 3 and Form Interrogatories, Nos. 106.1, 106.2, and 111.2 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. However, Defendant’s request for a further response as to Interrogatory No. 106.7 is DENIED. In addition, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 17, 2020  [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 17, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Marshall McQueen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for general negligence and products liability against Office Depot, Inc. (“Defendant”). On July 31, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, indicating he would proceed as a self-represented litigant.

On February 7, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions (the “Production Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

At the initial July 15, 2020 hearing, the Court found that it was unclear when Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (7/15/20 Minute Order.) Because of this, the Court could not determine whether the Motions were timely filed. (Id.) On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed supplemental papers.

At the continued October 26, 2020 hearing, the Court noted that Defendant submitted a copy of a Certificate of Death from the Los Angeles Department of Public Health demonstrating Plaintiff passed away on April 16, 2020. (Id. a ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Defendant also provides a declaration from Mable Elaine McQueen, Plaintiff’s widow, stating she and Plaintiff had no children and that she did not intend to intervene or substitute into this litigation as a personal representative. (9/10/20 Mable McQueen Decl., ¶ 2.) She further stated it was her “desire that this matter simply be dismissed…” (Id. at ¶ 3.) Based on this evidence, the Court set an OSC re: Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed (the “OSC”) for November 19, 2020. (10/26/20 Minute Order.) Defendant’s Motions were also continued to be concurrently heard with the OSC. (Id.)

To date, there have been no filings from decedent Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor-in-interest demonstrating an intention to substitute into this litigation. An opposition has also not been filed.

  1. 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)).

  1. Discussion

Defendant seeks a further response for Request for Production of Documents, Request No. 3, and Form Interrogatories, Nos. 106.1, 106.2, 106.7, and 111.2. Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on July 31, 2019 and with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on August 1, 2019, via regular mail. (Motions, Helfend Decl., ¶¶ 5, Exhs. A.) In its supplemental papers, Defendant states that responses to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were served on November 27, 2019 via regular mail. (9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exhs. A, B.) Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on December 4, 2019 regarding perceived deficiencies in the responses to the discovery. (Motions, Helfend Decl., ¶¶ 6, Exhs. B.) Defendant’s counsel also spoke to Plaintiff over the phone on December 16, 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel granted Plaintiff an extension to respond to the discovery requests up to January 15, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff also granted Defendant’s counsel an extension up to and including February 7, 2020 to file any motions to compel. (Id., Exhs. C.)

Thus, Defendant has demonstrated the Motions are timely and that it met the meet and confer requirements.

A. Request for Production

Request No. 3 asks Plaintiff to produce “[a]ny and all photographs, digital images, videotapes, diagrams, drawings, or renderings which concern the scene where the incident occurred, any vehicle or other object involved in the incident, or showing or depicting any injuries to the plaintiff or any other party.” (Production Mot., Sep. Statement, p. 2:4-5.) Plaintiff responded, “I have no such documents in my possession or under my control.” (Id. at p. 2:8-9.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s response is incomplete because Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 provides that if a party is unable to comply with a particular demand, then the responding party must “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” and must “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody or control of the responding party.” The responding party must also identify the name and address of any person known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s response does not satisfy the requirements of Section 2031.230. Thus, Defendant’s request to compel a further response to Request No. 3 is GRANTED.

B. Form Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 106.1 asks Plaintiff to describe each injury or illness related to the incident. (Interrogatories Mot., Helfend Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff responded, “[p]ain in the neck, upper back and shoulders; headaches; and numbness/tingling in hands.” (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:3-4; 9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

Defendant argues this response is incomplete because Plaintiff did not identify any specific injury or illness, but rather stated symptoms. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:5-14.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff did not identify an injury or illness. In addition, Plaintiff was required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain this information if he didn’t have it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) Thus, Defendant’s request for a further response to Interrogatory No. 106.1 is GRANTED.

Interrogatory No. 106.2 asks Plaintiff to describe his present complaints about each injury or illness related to the incident. (Interrogatories Mot., Helfend Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff responded, “[p]ain in the affected areas.” (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:3-4; 9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

Defendant argues this response is incomplete as it appears to reference the answer to a previous interrogatory. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:19-25.) Indeed, each answer to an interrogatory must “be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Plaintiff did not identify any injury or illness in response to this interrogatory or his complaints related to each injury or illness. Thus, it is incomplete. Defendant’s request to compel a further response is therefore GRANTED.

Interrogatory No. 106.7 asks that Plaintiff state the nature and cost of the health care services he anticipated in the future as a result of the incident. (Interrogatories Mot., Helfend Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff simply responded “[c]osts unknown” and identified two medical providers with their addresses. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:3-4; 9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

Defendant argues a further response should be compelled because Plaintiff had a duty to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information he did not have by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 3:13-20.) However, as Plaintiff has passed away, no future health care services are anticipated. Accordingly, Defendant’s request as to Interrogatory 106.7 is DENIED.  

Finally, Interrogatory No. 111.2 asks that Plaintiff state the case name, court, and case number for each personal injury action or claim filed by him or anyone acting on his behalf within the past ten years. (Interrogatories Mot., Helfend Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff identified one prior personal injury claim, Marshal McQueen Jr. v. Office Depot. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:3-4; 9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) He also stated he did not presently have the remaining information but that he was making an effort to obtain it and would supplement the interrogatory as soon as it was discovered. (Id.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff had a duty to answer this interrogatory to the extent possible. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 4:3-12.) Indeed, it does not appear that Plaintiff made a reasonably diligent effort to answer this interrogatory fully and completely. Thus, Defendant’s request to grant a further response to Interrogatory 111.2 is GRANTED.

C. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) A sanction is warranted unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that imposing sanctions in the instant case would be unjust. Defendant provides an email from Plaintiff indicating that he suffered a heart attack on January 3, 2020. (Motions, Helfend Decl., ¶¶ 8.) Defendant also provides evidence that Plaintiff passed away on April 16, 2020. (9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff’s failure to provide further responses was probably not intentional and instead resulted from his medical issues.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor-in-interest is ordered to provide further responses to Request for Production, No. 3 and Form Interrogatories, Nos. 106.1, 106.2, and 111.2 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. However, Defendant’s request for a further response as to Interrogatory No. 106.7 is DENIED. In addition, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04237    Hearing Date: October 26, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Mon., October 26, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME McQueen v. Office Depot, Inc. COMP. FILED: 04-30-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC04237 DISC. C/O: 03-16-21

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: 02-31-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-15-21

PROCEEDINGS    (1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, NO. 3, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Office Depot, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP §§ 2030.300; 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Office Depot, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions are DENIED.  

In addition, the Court sets an OSC re: Why Complaint Should Not be Dismissed for NOV 19,2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Marshall McQueen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for general negligence and products liability against Office Depot, Inc. (“Defendant”). On July 31, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, indicating that he would proceed as a self-represented litigant.

On February 7, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”).

At the initial July 15, 2020 hearing, the Court found that it was unclear when Defendant received Plaintiff’s responses to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (7/15/20 Minute Order.) Because of this, the Court could not determine whether the Motions were timely filed. (Id.) On September 10, 2020, Defendant filed supplemental papers.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court discusses the timeliness of Defendant’s Motion.

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of service of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on July 31, 2019 and with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on August 1, 2019, via regular mail. (Motions, Helfend Decl., ¶¶ 5, Exhs. A.) In its supplemental papers, Defendant states that the responses to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were served on November 27, 2019 via regular mail. (9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exhs. A, B.) Because responses were served by mail, the 45-day time limitation is extended by five days under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Defendant’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was thus, January 16, 2020. Because these Motions were not filed until February 7, 2020, they are untimely.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions are DENIED.

The Court notes that Defendant submits a copy of a Certificate of Death from the Los Angeles Department of Public Health demonstrating that Plaintiff passed away on April 16, 2020. (Id. a ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Defendant also provides a declaration from Mable Elaine McQueen, Plaintiff’s widow, stating she and Plaintiff had no children and that she does not intend to intervene or substitute into this litigation as a personal representative. (9/10/20 Mable McQueen Decl., ¶ 2.) She further states that it is her “desire that this matter simply be dismissed…” (Id. at ¶ 3.)

Based on the evidence presented, it appears that no one will continue prosecuting this action. Accordingly, the Court sets an OSC re: Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Office Depot, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions are DENIED. 

In addition, the Court sets an OSC re: Why Complaint Should Not be Dismissed for NOV 19, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04237    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP §§ 2030.300; 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Office Depot, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions are CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Marshall McQueen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for general negligence and products liability against Office Depot, Inc. (“Defendant”). On July 31, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, indicating that he would proceed as a self-represented litigant.

On February 7, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

A. Timeliness

Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given “within 45 days of service of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on July 31, 2019 and with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on August 1, 2019, via regular mail. (Motions, Helfend Decl., ¶¶ 5, Exhs. A.) However, Defendant does not indicate, nor is it clear from the attached exhibits, when Defendant received Plaintiff’s initial verified responses to the Form Interrogatories or the Request for Production of Documents. Indeed, if the moving party does not bring a motion to compel further responses within 45 days of receiving verified responses, or agrees to an extension within 45 days of having received such responses, it waives its rights to compel any further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

For this reason, Defendant is ordered to provide a supplemental declaration clarifying when it received Plaintiff’s initial responses so that the Court may determine whether this Motion was timely brought.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Office Depot, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, No. 3, and Request for Sanctions are CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.