Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV22081, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22081    Hearing Date: September 9, 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

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Eric Perine (“Plaintiff”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant BIS Logistics Inc. (“Defendant”). (Montes de Oca Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff granted several extensions. On March 26, 2024, Defendant served responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories; the responses contained only objections. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. 6.) Plaintiff granted extensions to provide further responses until April 23, 2024. On that day, Defendant failed to provide responses. (Id. ¶ 10.)

On June 12, 2024, the parties attended an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel represented issues communicating with Defendant and stated an intention to move to intervene. The minute order for the IDC states that the matter is resolved. (Min. Order, 6/12/24.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses from Defendant to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 3.1–3.7, 4.1–4.2, 7.1–7.3, 12.1–12.7, 13.1–13.2, 14.1–14.2, 15.1, 16.1–16.10, 20.1–20.11 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1 to 4. Plaintiff also seeks 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.

In opposition, Defendant’s counsel (“Counsel”) asserts that throughout February and August 2024, he emailed and called Defendant multiple times, requesting assistance in the defense of this action. (Pollack Decl. ¶ 7.) Counsel states that he retained an investigator to contact Defendant. On August 25, 2024, Defendant responded to counsel and signed the verifications for the discovery. (Id. ¶ 8.) The amended responses were served on August 26, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9.)

No reply has been filed. Therefore, since amended responses have been served, the motions to compel further are denied as moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, are denied as moot.  

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