Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV34141, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34141    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Defendants Malihe Zarimany and Bobak Roshan (“Defendants”) move to compel further responses from Plaintiff Kaveh Sam Elihu (“Plaintiff”) to (1) Requests for Production of Documents, set two (“RPD”); (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  Defendant has opposed. Plaintiff has not replied.

ANALYSIS

On April 25, 2023, Defendants served the special interrogatories and requests for documents. (Kelian Decl. ¶ 3.) On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to the special interrogatories and requests for documents which consisted of objections, signed by counsel. (Kelian Decl, Exh. B.) While these objections lack a verification statement, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.250 states that “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections” and “[t]he attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” Accordingly, the documents that consist solely of objections are “responses,” and Plaintiffs’ motions are not motions to compel initial responses, but are motions to compel further responses.

The Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub requires counsel to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) before the Court will hear any motion to compel further responses to discovery.  Defendants reserved an IDC and the parties filed statements, which the Court reviewed. However, counsel for Defendants did not appear for the IDC. The IDC was therefore not held and was placed off calendar.

The Court therefore denies the motions as procedurally defective.  Accordingly, the Court also denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies the motions to compel further discovery responses and denies the requests for sanctions.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.