Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV00622, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

OCTOBER 22, 2024

(Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV00622

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Daysi Geromi Moran; and Elmi Moran (collectively, “Defendants”)¿

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling further responses to the following discovery requests:

· Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to defendant Daysi Geromi Moran, No. 1;

· Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to defendant Elmi Moran, Nos. 1, 4–6, 31–34, and 36–38.

· Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, to defendant Daysi Geromi Moran, Nos. 3–4 and 6–10; and

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions to be imposed against Defendants and their counsel in the combined amount of $1,920.00.

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 9/30/22, she was a passenger in a vehicle involved in an automobile collision with a vehicle operated by defendant Daysi Geromi Moran (“Daysi”). (Compl. pp. 4–5.) Defendant Elmi Moran (“Elmi”) allegedly entrusted the vehicle to Daysi. (Id. at p. 4.)

On 2/29/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendants a sole cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence. On 4/8/24, Defendants filed their answers.

On 4/15/24, Plaintiff served Defendants with the subject discovery requests. (Decl. of Karin Gharabighi ¶ 3.) On 5/22/24, Defendants served their responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 7/10/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to the subject discovery requests. On 10/10/24, Defendants filed their oppositions thereto. On 10/15/24, Plaintiff filed her replies.

A motion to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 6/25/24, she sent Defendants’ counsel meet-and-confer letters raising the issues discussed herein. (Gharabighi Decl. ¶ 5.) On 7/1/24, Defendants’ counsel responded. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that “other than one exchange of letters briefly discussing the issues, Plaintiff never contacted Defendant to further discuss the issues” (Def. Daysi’s SPROG Opp. 5:22–23.) Plaintiff maintains that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied, and that “a meet and confer attempt do [sic] not require a party to pick up the phone to discuss issues or send a separate email than the one where the letter was attached to satisfy the meet and confer letter.” (Pl.’s Reply to Def. Dayski’s SPROG Opp. 3:17–19.)

The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement was not satisfied here, as Defendants’ counsel’s response letter invites clarification and further discussion. (Ex. 4 to Gharabighi Decl.) Based on the foregoing, the Court orders counsel for the parties to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred. The motions are therefore continued pending further meet and confer.

The motions are continued. The parties’ counsel are ordered to meet and further confer either telephonically or in-person within 60 days, to resolve and/or narrow all outstanding discovery issues. Plaintiff’s counsel is to file a declaration with the Court which confirms compliance with this order or explains why no meaningful meet and confer occurred.