Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 05/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with
34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 05/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53
a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents scheduled for 05/28/2024 is continued to 06/18/2024 at 01:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in-interest Ryan Rasmussen, and Ryan Rasmussen, in his individual capacitys (Plaintiffs) motion to compel Defendant ALHL, LLC, dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation (Defendant) to further respond to requests for production of documents, set one is CONTINUED to June 18, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in this department for Plaintiffs to file a supplemental declaration detailing whether the Parties agreed, in writing, to extend the time to file the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c).
The notice of motion does not include an address for the Court. The address for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
On October 5, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendant with requests for production of documents, set one. (Declaration of Margot Cutter (Cutter Decl.) ¶2, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs provided Defendant with multiple extensions to respond to these requests. (Cutter Decl. ¶3, Exh. B.) Defendant provided written responses on December 11, 2023 and verifications on December 26, 2023. (Cutter Decl. ¶4, Exh.C.) On February 2, 2024, Plaintiffs set a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant regarding the responses. (Cutter Decl. ¶5, Exh. D.) Plaintiffs letter requests a response by February 9, 2024 on whether Plaintiffs will need to file a motion to compel. (Exh. D, p. 2.) Defendant responded to the meet-and-confer letter on February 14, 2024. (Cutter Decl. ¶6, Exh. E.) Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on February 21, 2024.
A motion to compel further responses must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified response or by any later date agreed to in writing by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The deadline for bringing a motion to compel is mandatory and jurisdictional; thus, the court must deny a motion that is untimely filed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)
Here, Defendant provided verifications on December 26, 2023. The deadline for Plaintiffs to
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 05/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53
bring the instant motion expired on February 9, 2024. Even accounting for additional days for service, Plaintiffs were required to file the instant motion no later than February 14, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 21, 2024. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that the Parties agreed to a later date for Plaintiffs to bring a motion to compel. While Defendant did not raise this issue in its opposition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 is mandatory and jurisdictional and requires denial of the motion even if the opposing party does not raise the objection in written opposition. (See Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1404, 1410 [Section 2031 is jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them even when the responding party failed to raise that objection in its written opposition.])
Accordingly, the matter is continued for Plaintiffs counsel to file a supplement declaration by no later than June 11, 2024 providing evidence of a written agreement between the Parties extending the deadline to file the instant motion.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)