Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV23920, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV23920    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Mikel Rastegar’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff Mikel Rastegar moves to compel defendants Mark Blankenship and Jennifer Harper to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and request for admissions, set one, without objections. 

Plaintiff has not shown valid service of the discovery requests.  A party must respond to written discovery “[w]ithin 30 days after service.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a) [interrogatories], 2031.260 [requests for production], 2033.250(a) [requests for admission].)  Self-represented parties are not required to accept electronic service of papers, including discovery requests, “unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B); accord Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(c).) 

Defendants Blankenship and Harper represent themselves in this action.  The record includes no document showing either defendant affirmatively consented to electronic service.  Plaintiff’s declaration states he served these discovery requests on defendants “through electronic service.”  (Rastegar Decl., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff states a proof of service of the discovery requests is attached as Exhibit A (id., ¶ 3), but rather than a sworn proof of service, the document provided is a copy of the email that included these discovery requests as attachments.  Plaintiff has only shown electronic service of the discovery requests and has not shown defendants consented to that manner of service.  Ineffective service did not trigger defendants’ obligation to respond within 30 days.

Plaintiff Mikel Rastegar’s motion to compel discovery responses is denied.