Alexander vs Peter J. Kim, DDS A Professional Corporation, et al.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories- General, Set One from Sierra Oaks Dental in Department 54

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Patricia Alexander’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses from Defendant Sierra Oaks Dental (“Sierra Oaks”) to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED as untimely.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on March 7, 2024. Sierra Oaks served responses on June 24, 2024. The responses consisted solely of objections and thus were signed only by counsel and not by Sierra Oaks. On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the responses. In the letter, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel was August 12, 2024.[1] Plaintiff’s counsel thus requested a three-week extension. Sierra Oaks’ counsel did not respond to this letter.

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow-up email noting that he was awaiting response to the August 7 letter and asking for “a two (2) week extension.” (Searcy Decl., Exh. 5.) Sierra Oaks counsel granted the extension that same day but noted that their office had no authority to do any further work on the case and would be moving to be relieved as counsel in the coming days. Approximately 10 minutes later, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 90-day extension and indicated that the new deadline would be December 2, 2024. (Searcy Decl., Exh. 6.)

On August 22, 2024, Sierra Oaks’ counsel declined the extension.

On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s filed two motions to compel further responses involving approximately 10 total discovery sets served on two different defendants. On December 12, 2024, the Court dropped both motions for failure to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E). That same day, Plaintiff re-filed the motions as 10 separate motions on today’s calendar. Neither the September 3 nor December 12 motions were opposed, and neither addressed the issue of whether the motions were timely.

The deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(c), which states:

Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories- General, Set One from Sierra Oaks Dental in Department 54

propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)

The 45-day time limit is “‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Responses that contain only objections need not be verified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250(a).) Thus, it is not clear whether the 45-day time limit applies where the responses contain only objections. (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136 [“We can leave for another day the possibility of an ‘absurd result,’ as the trial court put it, if there is no time limit on a motion to compel involving [only] objections.”]; see also, id. at fn. 5 [suggesting the Legislature address the issue].)

While this is an open question, the Court reads Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(c) to apply where the responses contain only objections. The phrase “[u]nless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response” was not intended to exclude motions challenging the sufficiency of objections. (See Sen. Jud. Com., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1183 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.), 06/04/13.) The Legislature’s use the term “verified response” is reasonably read to denote both a party’s verification of substantive responses as well as an attorney’s signature supporting objections.

Had the Legislature understood objection-only discovery responses as the equivalent of no responses at all, such that there was no time limit for a motion to compel when the responses contain only objections, then presumably it would have addressed such responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, not section 2030.300. Instead, the Legislature authorized a motion to compel further responses where “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a)(3).)

It follows that the 45-day timeline applies even where the responses contain only objections.

Further, courts are obligated “to avoid absurd results” when interpreting a statute. (Gilbert v. Chang (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 537, 551.) “‘[W]here the meaning is doubtful, any construction which would lead to absurd results should be rejected since absurd results are not supposed to have been contemplated by the legislature.’” (Aggeler v. Dominguez (1933) 217 Cal. 429, 434.) It would be an absurd result if there were no deadline to file a motion to compel further responses where the responses contained only objections. There must be a clear timeline; it either runs from service of objections only responses which are not required to be verified or it never runs at all. The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to agree with this interpretation, as it had calendared a deadline as if the 45-day limit applied.

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely for several reasons. First, Plaintiff let the initial August 12, 2024 deadline lapse before following up with defense counsel on August 21, 2024. It is not clear

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories- General, Set One from Sierra Oaks Dental in Department 54

whether the parties can revive the deadline after it has lapsed. Second, an agreement between the parties to extend the 45-day deadline must include a “specific later date” as the new deadline. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) Here, Plaintiff’s initial meet and confer letter noted that the deadline was August 12, 2024 and asked for a three-week extension. That deadline lapsed without a response, and on August 21, 2024, Plaintiff requested a two-week extension, which was granted. No specific date was provided.

Since the original deadline had lapsed, it is not clear which date the two-week extension should be counted from. Is it two weeks from the original August 12, 2024 deadline? Or two weeks from August 21, 2024? This is why section 2030.300(c) requires a specific date. Third, and most problematic, even assuming the September 3, 2024 motions were timely, those motions were dropped due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E). Plaintiff filed the present motions on December 12, 2024, well after the 45-day deadline or any potential extension expired.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) [1] The Court notes that the manner in which the responses were served is not clear from the moving papers, but this

deadline date indicates they were served via email, as 45 days from June 24, 2024 is Thursday, August 8, 2024, plus two days for email service, making the deadline August 12, 2024.