NICOLE JACKSON VS SLOAN'S DRY CLEANERS

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10512    Hearing Date: September 14, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

ANALYSIS:

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of 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).) Here, Defendant’s initial verified responses were served by mail on February 24, 2020. (Motion, Jackson Decl., Exhs. A-B.) The notice of motion and motion to compel further were timely served on March 25, 2020. (Motion, POS.)

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed two declarations in support of the instant Motion with slightly differing dates regarding communication with defense counsel. (Motion, Jackson Decl., filed 3/30/20; Amended Jackson Decl., filed 7/20/20.) Even taking the amended declaration as credible, despite the lack of explanation for the changed dates, Plaintiff has not shown a good faith attempt to meet and confer regarding the issues raised by this Motion. Plaintiff declares that she called Defendant on March 20, 2020 but did not receive a response, and she sent a meet and confer letter by email and mail on March 23, 2020. (Motion, Amended Jackson Decl., ¶¶4-5 and Exh. C.) The instant Motion was filed on March 25, 2020, giving Defendant only days to respond before it was filed. This fails to show that Plaintiff truly sought an informal resolution of this discovery dispute prior to the filing of the Motion. This is further demonstrated by the demand in the meet and confer letter that further responses must be served in order for the Motion to be withdrawn. (Ibid.) Plaintiff could have waited until an additional two weeks before filing the Motion in order to comply with the 45-day deadline, yet chose to rush to Court without giving defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to respond.

An additional procedural failing of the Motion is that Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires 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).) The Motion is not accompanied by a separate statement as mandated by the Rules of Court. Without a separate statement, the Court cannot discern the complete language of the interrogatory at issue or of the purportedly inadequate response.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendant has served supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatory in question on August 29, 2020, which make the instant Motion moot. (Supp. Responses, filed 8/29/20.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories is DENIED.