Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV18751, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18751    Hearing Date: June 6, 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

Plaintiffs Shannon Tymkiw and Bradley Wheeler (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel further responses from Defendant Sarah Coplen (“Defendant”) to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes. No reply has been filed.

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, and provides that PI Hub Courts may deny or continue any motion if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing. There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff filed an IDC statement with the Court or scheduled an IDC for this motion.

In addition, Plaintiff does not respond to Defendant’s argument that Defendant provided amended responses on February 14, 2024, after the motions to compel further were filed, and no motion to compel further has since been timely filed. Plaintiff further does not response to Defendant’s argument regarding the parties’ agreement and the lack of sufficient meet and confer efforts.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, are DENIED.

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