World of Mallets, the well-known manufacturer of custom croquet mallets, is in litigation with one of its independent designers, Colonel Ross, over Ross's popular croquet mallet, the "Silver Blaze." The litigation is in the California state courts with World of Mallets as the plaintiff and Ross as the defendant. Ross has filed a cross-complaint alleging that World of Mallets has interfered with his ability to design mallets for other croquet mallet manufacturers. You represent World of Mallets in this high stakes litigation. World of Mallets is conducting discovery. It served a set of specially prepared interrogatories on Ross. Ross served written responses to the interrogatories on World of Mallets by mail on May 15, 2017. (Hint: You may want to look at a 2017 calendar.)

1. One of the interrogatories was: "How much did you earn designing mallets in 2015?" Ross objects on the grounds that the information is irrelevant. As to this objection, you write to counsel stating that it does not matter if the information is directly relevant as long as it may lead you to relevant information. What statute supports your position?
2. You have reached an impasse with Ross's counsel over the responses to the interrogatories and you want to file a motion to compel further responses. Ross's attorney refuses to extend your time to file this motion. What is the date of the last day you may file and serve your motion? In support of your answer, cite all relevant statutes by which that date is determined.