Lopez v. Ralphs Grocery Company et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Before the merits of the Motions are considered, the Court notes that Defendant filed two Motions concerning three different discovery methods. It is improper to combine motions seeking different reliefs. Defendant should have filed one discovery motion for each discovery method. As relevant here, Defendant should have filed three separate motions for the three discovery methods at issue: a separate motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for inspection. Because Defendant improperly combined three motions into two motions, it only paid two filing fees instead of three. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.) “Unless otherwise provided by law, any document for which a filing fee is required under Governme