Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV11541, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11541    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    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.  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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tamera Pinelo (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Jorge Carlos Castro (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes.

ANALYSIS

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. (See Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub § 9E.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s counsel refused to engage in an IDC. (Dayen Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. F.) However, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed an IDC statement with the Court or reserved a date.

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective. Accordingly, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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