Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV44468, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44468    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Peter Paul Borja (“Defendant”) propounded special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Juan Carlos Flores (“Plaintiff”) on December 28, 2021.  Defendant asserts that after granting Plaintiff multiple extensions to serve responses to the discovery, Plaintiff was to serve responses by February 28, 2022.  Defendant attests that on February 28, 2022, Plaintiff served improper responses containing only objections to the discovery.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff is acting in bad faith by refusing to answer the discovery requests with substantive information.  Defendant now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objection, to the discovery and imposing sanctions.

Plaintiff opposes the motions contending that Defendant is improperly moving to compel initial responses instead of moving to compel further responses to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff contends that because Defendant is seeking to compel further response, Defendant must participate in an Informal Discovery Conference with Plaintiff per the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the motions and that Plaintiff did not waive any objections to the discovery requests because the responses were timely served pursuant to an extension granted by Defendant. 

As of August 22, 2022, the Court has not received any reply to the oppositions.  To the extent Defendant contends the responses are incomplete or inadequate, Defendant must move to compel further responses and comply with all relevant Rules of Court.  (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 [“If the propounding party believes that the responses … are deficient in some respect or that any objections thereto are not well taken, he or she may make a motion to compel further responses ....”].)

Therefore, Defendant’s motions to compel are denied, without prejudice to filing motions to compel further.  If Defendant is dissatisfied with Plaintiff’s responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and RPDs, Defendant must participate in an Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order and file a motion to compel further.  The court requests that the parties meet and confer promptly and meaningfully in an effort to resolve any remaining issues related to the discovery.  Professional courtesy and cooperation are expected. 

            Plaintiff does not request sanctions.  No sanctions are awarded.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 25^th day of August 2022