Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and for Monetary Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Harry v. WinCo Holdings, Inc. Case No. 24CECG00482
Hearing Date: May 21, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and for Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To deny plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and requests for production and the request for monetary sanctions, as the motions were not timely served and filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).)
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.
Explanation:
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c), “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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”
Section 2030.300 contains an identical 45-day time limit for bringing motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)
The 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel is mandatory. The court has no jurisdiction to grant a motion brought after the deadline has run, and such an untimely motion must be denied. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 137; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 683
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?”
Here, defendant served its responses to the discovery requests on November 2, 2025. The parties then agreed to a number of extensions of time to bring motions to compel while they met and conferred, with the final extension expiring on February 9, 2025. The parties were ultimately unable to resolve their dispute, and plaintiff filed her request for a pretrial discovery conference on February 9, 2026, the same day the deadline to bring the motions expired.
The filing of the request for pretrial discovery conference tolled the deadline to bring a motion to compel until the court ruled on the request. (Fresno Sup. Ct. Local Rules, Rule 2.1.17 G.)
The court denied the request and granted leave to file the motions to compel on February 23, 2026. The court noted that the deadline was tolled for the time that the request had been pending, which the court calculated to be 14 days. The court’s order was served electronically on February 23, 2026. Thus, plaintiff had until February 25, 2026 in which to file and serve the motions to compel. 5
However, plaintiff did not actually serve the motions to compel until March 9, 2026, 12 days after the deadline to file the motions expired. Plaintiff did not file the motions until March 10, 2026. Therefore, the motions to compel were not filed and served within the mandatory deadline to bring motions to compel further responses, and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear their merits.
Instead, the court intends to deny the motions for untimeliness. The court will also deny plaintiff’s request for sanctions against defendant, as there is no basis for sanctions due to the untimeliness of the motions.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 05/20/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
6