(CCP 2030.300(b).) However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith. Calex was aware based on the other documents the nature of DRC’s motion.īefore bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party must make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. Although the Court agrees that the documents are inconsistent, this inconsistency does not constitute improper notice that makes the entire motion defective. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition.Ĭalex argues that DRC’s notice of motion is defective because the notice identifies the subject discovery requests as the entire RPD (notice 2:6-7) but the remaining documents address only RPD No. However, DRC filed a reply on the merits and does not otherwise identify any prejudice. Calex does not otherwise explain why it filed its opposition late. This timing left DRC less time than it should have had pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. It is undisputed that Calex’s opposition was due on November 12, 2021, i.e., nine court days before the hearing, but Calex filed it on November 16, 2021, i.e., seven court days before the hearing. Whether the Court Should Consider Calex’s Untimely OppositionĪs a preliminary matter, DRC argues that the Court should not consider Calex’s opposition that was untimely filed on November 16, 2021. The Court DENIES Calex’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court DENIES DRC’s request for monetary sanctions. Calex is to serve a further response within 20 days. DRC’s Motion to Compel Production of Calex’s Further Responses to DRC’s Request for Production is GRANTED.
Sanctions in motion not specified against partġ. Calex also seeks $3,000.00 in monetary sanctions against DRC and its counsel. DRC also seeks $4,425.00 in monetary sanctions. On October 26, 2021, DRC filed the instant motion to compel Calex’s further responses to DRC’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RPD”), No.
to recover on mechanic's lien release bond breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing ĩ. common count: goods and services rendered Ĩ. Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”) allegedly issued a mechanic’s lien release bond to DRC in relation to Calex’s mechanic’s lien against the project.Ĭalex filed its initial complaint on July 28, 2020.Ĭalex filed its operative first amended complaint on October 8, 2020, alleging:Ģ. Calex generally alleges that DRC did not fully pay for Calex’s work. (“DRC”) was the general contractor for the Project and subcontracted Plaintiff Calex Engineering Company (“Calex”) to perform certain grading work at the Project. This is a breach of contract action arising out of a construction project of the Courtyard and Townplace Suites hotel in Agoura Hills, California (the “Project”). Responding Party: Plaintiff Calex Engineering Company Moving Party: Defendant DavisReed Construction, Inc. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSESĭate of Hearing: NovemTrial Date: May 9, 2022 Case Number: *******0816 Hearing Date: NovemDept: WĬALEX ENGINEERING COMPANY V.
0 kommentar(er)
