GENOA MARTELL VS. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC. (DBA "WISH)", A CORPORATION ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Monday, August 11, 2025, Line 6. 1 - PLAINTIFF GENOA MARTELL' Motion To Compel Further Responses To First Discovery Requests To Defendant Wish Us Holdings, Llc.

Plaintiff Genoa Martell's motion to compel further responses is DENIED as untimely. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Wish US Holdings, LLC's further responses to her first set of requests for production of documents, requests for admission, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories, propounded on February 9, 2025. Defendant served initial responses to these requests on March 13, 2025, and supplemented some of these responses on April 29, 2025. (Martell decl. para. 2-3, 6.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310 and 1010.6, Plaintiff had to file this motion at the latest by Tuesday, June 17, 2025 (45 days from April 29th plus two court days for e-service). Defendant did not agree to extend the deadline past June 17, 2025. Plaintiff filed this motion on June 23, 2025, several days past this deadline.

Plaintiff argues the court should exercise its discretion to consider this motion for good cause. She explains she was waiting to file this motion in good faith, and out of judicial economy, to see if Defendant would cure the alleged deficiencies. This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the "the court [is] without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them." (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1996) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant created procedural ambiguities by offering to extend her initial deadline to May 19, 2025, prior to supplementing its responses. (Mot. 5:7-8.) This argument is irrelevant because Plaintiff did not move to compel by May 19, 2025. The 45-day deadline ran from the date of Defendant's 4/29/25 supplemental responses, and Defendant did not agree to extend this deadline further. Moreover, procedural confusion is not grounds to extend this deadline under Sexton.

Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification in connection with this discovery and motion. Plaintiff shall pay $560 as sanctions to Defendant Wish US Holdings by August 29, 2025

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |