Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV12800, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12800    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Dennis Floyd’s Motion to Compel Defendant Kia America’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Set One and Special Interrogatories Set One and for Sanctions

            Plaintiff Dennis Floyd moves to compel defendant Kia America, Inc. to serve supplemental responses to form and special interrogatories.  After a successful motion to compel further responses, “[i]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).  In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  (CCP § 2030.300(e).)

Defendant did not violate a court order compelling further responses to interrogatories.  Plaintiff’s counsel states, “On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses was heard in Department 52 by The Honorable Anthony Mohr.  Judge Mohr read his tentative ruling into the record which was adopted by the parties.  Judge Mohr granted Plaintiff’s motion as to all contested discovery except Special Interrogatory Numbers 5, 8, and 9 with all supplemental responses to be served by Defendant within 21 days of the hearing.  Judge Mohr thereafter issued a Minute Order which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.”  (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 2.) 

The court did not grant the motion and did not order defendant to serve supplemental responses.  The minute order states, “Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is placed off calendar this date.  [¶.]  The Parties are to meet and confer on the remaining issues and if unsuccessful, the parties are to contact the Courtroom Assistant to scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).”  (Hernandez Decl., Ex. A.)  Defendant could not have violated a court order when it was not ordered to do anything. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not state she contacted the courtroom assistant to schedule an IDC.  The motion instead states, “Plaintiff will request the interim IDC date ahead of this motion hearing.”  (Motion, p. 4.) 

            Plaintiff Dennis Floyd’s motion is denied.