Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV32178, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32178    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Piedad Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) propounded request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Defendant Corey Ray Strait (“Defendant”) more than nine months ago, on March 3, 2022.  To date, despite attempts to meet and confer, Defendant has not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the RPDs and to pay sanctions.

On November 22, 2022, Defendant submitted an opposition providing that Defendant’s current counsel associated into the action nearly four months ago, on August 9, 2022, after Defendant’s prior counsel’s wife was diagnosed with cancer.  Defendant’s current counsel has been unable to establish contact with Defendant and requests that this matter be continued while Defendant’s counsel attempts to contact Defendant. 

In reply, Plaintiff states that while Plaintiff is sympathetic to defense counsel’s situation, this action is set for trial for February 28, 2023, and Plaintiff requires responses to the RPDs. 

Although the Court is sympathetic to the original defense counsel’s situation, the evidence shows that Defendant has not served any responses to the subject discovery, despite the fact that discovery was served more than nine months ago and additional counsel has been involved in the case for nearly four months.  Further, this matter is set for trial for less than four months from this hearing, and there is no indication as to when responses may be provided. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to RPDs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days.  (CCP § 2031.300(a), (b).)

Sanctions are mandatory unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (CCP § 2031.300(c).)  Here, the failure to serve discovery was due in part to the family emergency of Defendant’s original counsel.  The extent to which Defendant or Defendant’s more recent counsel is responsible is less clear.  Thus, the court declines to impose sanctions at this juncture..

Plaintiff 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 7^th day of December 2022