“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).)

The separate statement is a very useful tool for the Court to decide discovery disputes; it requires that the dispute be presented on a request-by-request basis with the objections, responses and arguments all in one place. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).) The separate statement requirement was designed to streamline adjudication of discovery motions, and a failure to file a separate statement is a sufficient basis for denying plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion:

1. To compel further responses to requests for admission;
2. To compel further responses to interrogatories;
3. To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things;
4. To compel answers at a deposition;
5. To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition;
6. For medical examination over objection; and
7. For issue or evidentiary sanctions.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(a); BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270.)

“The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

1. The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
2. The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
3. A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
4. If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
5. If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and
6. If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)

A trial court is acting well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery on the basis that the mandated separate statement was not provided or the statement provided does not comply with the requirements of the Court Rule. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) Although Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court does not explicitly provide a remedy for failure to comply with it, at least one appellate court has cited with approval the trial court’s dropping of a motion to compel discovery where the moving part failed to comply with Rule 335, which was renumbered as Rule 3.1345. (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)