PICHINO CASEY ET AL VS. SIC-MCM 825 POST STREET, LP ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC25625334 - November 13, 2025 Hearing date: November 13, 2025 Case number: CGC25625334 Case title: PICHINO CASEY ET AL VS. SIC-MCM 825 POST STREET, LP ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25625334 | Case Title: | | PICHINO CASEY ET AL VS. SIC-MCM 825 POST STREET, LP ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-13 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Compel Responses To Discovery | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Thursday, November 13, 2025, Line 9, 2. PLAINTIFFS PICHINO CASEY, MITISHA YORK'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY. (Part 1 of 2)

Plaintiffs Pichino Casey and Mitisha York's motion to compel Defendant Greentree Property Management, Inc.'s responses to their Interrogatories is GRANTED. The discovery requests at issue appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) Defendant has not established that it has provided any responses to the Interrogatories. No meet and confer requirement exists for motions to compel responses for Interrogatories when no responses have been provided. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.) Plaintiffs, however, met and conferred. Defendant's failure to timely respond is not excused. Plaintiff shall serve verified, objection-free, substantive responses to Plaintiffs' May 27, 2025, Interrogatories by November 27, 2025.

Plaintiffs Pichino Casey and Mitisha York's motion to compel Defendant Greentree Property Management, Inc.'s responses to her Request For Production Of Documents ("RFPs") and produce the responsive documents is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The discovery requests at issue appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) The record demonstrates Defendant did not provide any responses to the RFPs. No meet and confer requirement exists for motions to compel responses for requests for production of documents when no responses have been provided. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.) Plaintiffs, however, met and conferred. Defendant's failure to timely respond is not excused. Defendant shall serve verified, objection-free, substantive responses to Plaintiffs' May 27, 2025, RFPs by November 26, 2025.

Plaintiffs' request for an order directing Defendant to produce the responsive documents is denied without prejudice. Moving Party failed to demonstrate Plaintiff failed to timely serve the responsive documents. RFP responses and the related document production are typically staggered occurrences. Discovery and related motions must allow sufficient time to comply with the letter and spirit of the Discovery Act. This said, Plaintiff is admonished to comply with her discovery obligations, including production of documents.