Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV01422, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01422    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Lian Situ (“Defendant”) propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on Plaintiff Jesse Endo (“Plaintiff”) on December 21, 2021.  Defendant asserts that on January 24, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel stated additional time was required to respond to the discovery and confirmed that responses would be provided on or before February 7, 2022.  Plaintiff then served objection only responses on Defendant for each set of discovery on February 7, 2022, and promised substantive responses would follow.  (Motions Exh. C.)  Defendant contends that Defendant then met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding the status of substantive responses, but to date, Plaintiff has not served substantive responses. 

The motion is unopposed. 

Defendant admits that Plaintiff served objections to the discovery requests and does not state whether the extension for Plaintiff to respond on or before February 7, 2022, addressed whether objections had been waived.  Consequently, Plaintiff has not shown that the objections have been waived. 

Nonetheless, when Plaintiff served the objections electronically on Defendant, Plaintiff explicitly stated that Plaintiff would serve “substantive responses” on Defendant “as soon as [Plaintiff] can.”  (Motions Exh. D.)  Thereafter, Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff multiple times regarding the status of the substantive responses Plaintiff indicated would be forthcoming, but to date Plaintiff has not served the responses promptly as Plaintiff represented he would do.  (See CCP §§ 2030.270, 2031.270, 2031.320.)

To the extent that Plaintiff intends to serve substantive responses to any non-objectionable portions of the discovery, and to produce documents, Plaintiff must do so within 20 days.  

To the extent Defendant contends the responses remain deficient thereafter, 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 ....”]; accord. Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-58 [parties not required to verify responses containing only objections].) 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel is granted.  No sanctions are requested, and none are awarded.

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 4^th day of October 2022