Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV03621, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV03621    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion Filed: 5/17/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Georges N. Ibrahim, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant David P. Girgis (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One. Plaintiff also seeks $10,575.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendant and his counsel.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is off-calendar as moot. The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is a defamation action, wherein Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made false defamatory statements about Plaintiff’s sexual orientation to members of their church. (Compl. ¶¶ 18–37.)

On 11/29/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Libel; (2) Slander; (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On 1/22/24, Defendant filed his answer.

On 3/22/24, Defendant served the subject initial discovery requests on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Michael M. Ashmadshahi ¶ 2.)[1] On 5/17/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s responses thereto. On 11/26/24, Defendant filed his opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Plaintiff electronically served Defendant with the subject discovery requests by on 3/22/24, the last day for Defendant to respond was 4/24/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Despite being granted two extensions to serve his responses, Defendant failed to provide the responses by the filing date of the instant motion. (Id. at ¶¶ 14–18.)

In opposition, Defendant’s current counsel declares that his law firm was substituted into the case after Defendant’s former counsel was incapacitated due to a stroke, eventually passing away. (Decl. of Grant A. Carlson ¶ 4.) Counsel further declares that the instant motion should be denied because Defendant served his full responses to the subject discovery requests on 8/21/24. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file any reply. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant motion is moot, including the issue of monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION 

The motion is off-calendar as moot. The Court declines to issue monetary sanctions.