Motion to Compel Document Responses After a Missed Deadline
Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry; Lions Gate Films Inc.
A corporate defendant let the deadline for responding to a document demand pass without serving anything: no responses, no objections, no privilege log, no documents. Under the Discovery Act that failure waives every objection to the requests, including objections based on privilege and work product.
A corporate defendant let the deadline for responding to a document demand pass without serving anything: no responses, no objections, no privilege log, no documents. Under the Discovery Act that failure waives every objection to the requests, including objections based on privilege and work product.
An order compelling the defendant to serve verified responses, without objection, to plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to produce all responsive documents within ten days; and a monetary sanction of $11,760 against the defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally.
This motion was filed in Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry. A dated timeline of the case is kept current as the docket moves. A second discovery motion, the motion to compel Tyler Perry's deposition, was set for hearing the same day.
The dates decide it
The requests were served by mail on 7 April 2026 through an independent mailing service, addressed to three offices of the firms defending the company. Responses were due by 12 May 2026. Nothing was served by that date, and nothing was served before this motion was filed on 12 June 2026 — a month past the deadline.
Where a party fails to serve a timely response to a document demand, the party waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403–404.
Service by mail is complete when the mail is deposited
The defence position was that service failed. For discovery, service by mail is statutorily authorised and is complete at the time of deposit. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1013, subdivision (a), and 2016.050. No rule of court nullifies a method the Code authorises, and service directed to a party’s counsel of record serves the party, whatever the status of any individual lawyer within that firm.
The company’s own declarations conceded that the mailing reached two of the three offices it was addressed to — one envelope arrived and sat in a stack of unopened mail, another reached an office and was forwarded to a lawyer’s inbox. The third was complete on deposit whatever happened to it afterwards. What those declarations describe is an internal breakdown at the firms handling the defence, not a failure of service.
Asking for relief from a waiver concedes the waiver happened
The opposition was supported by eight declarations explaining why the requests went unanswered, and it asked to be relieved of the waiver. Relief from a waiver presupposes a waiver, and a waiver presupposes valid service. The narrow question on a motion to compel is whether a timely response was served. It was not.
A late response does not end the motion
Responses were served on 17 June 2026, five days after this motion was filed, and the verified set was superseded hours later by an amended set signed by counsel alone, without verification. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. A response served after a motion to compel is filed does not divest the court of authority to grant the motion or to impose the mandatory sanction. Sinaiko, above, at 407–409; California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).
Why it matters
Deadlines in the Discovery Act are not administrative courtesies. A party that ignores a document demand for a month does not get to answer on its own timetable, keep its objections, and treat the motion that forced the issue as moot. The consequence the statute attaches — a full waiver of objections, privilege included — is what makes the deadline mean anything at all.
The filed documents
Every document below was filed with the court and is reproduced here in full, as filed. The opposition papers and the declarations supporting them were filed by the defendant.
- Notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities
- Declaration of Jonathan J. Delshad
- Declaration of Wendy Carmona
- Reply in support of the motion
- Declaration of Jonathan J. Delshad in support of the reply, with exhibits A to C
The opposition papers, as filed by the defendant
These were filed by Lions Gate Films Inc. in opposition to the motion, and are reproduced here so the record is complete.
- Lionsgate's opposition, and its motion for relief from waiver
- Declaration of Alex Spiro
- Declaration of Charlene Ho
- Declaration of Alex Bergjans
- Declaration of Joel Lat
- Declaration of Anthony Capobianco
- Declaration of Matthew Boyd
- Declaration of Michael Lifrak
- Declaration of Mari Henderson, with exhibits
Note
Public-record court filing, published to show the firm’s work. This case is in active litigation and the firm does not comment on it beyond the filed papers. General information, not legal advice. Attorney advertising.
Tell us what happened. We read it free.
Send it in a sentence or two. If there’s a case, we’ll tell you what it is and what to do next. If there isn’t, we’ll tell you that too, straight, and at no cost.
Prefer to talk? Call (424) 255-8376. A real person answers.