Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV37898, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37898    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Jonah Saad (“Plaintiff’) filed this lawsuit against defendants Ronald Chatman Jr., Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

On June 27, 2022, Defendant Ronald Chatman Jr. (“Defendant”) filed the instant motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, against Plaintiff.  Defendant scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference for October 18, 2022, to address the discovery issues.  However, there was no appearance by or for Plaintiff.  Defendant, thus, met its requirement to appear for an Informal Discovery Conference relating to the instant motions to compel further responses.  (Min. Order, Oct. 18, 2022.)  The motions are unopposed.   

2. Motions to Compel Further Responses

On receipt of a response to interrogatories the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2030.300(a).)

A party may move for an order compelling a further response to a request for production of documents if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(CCP § 2031.310(a).)

In this case, Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, against Plaintiff.  Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to timely serve responses to the special interrogatories and RPDs waiving all objections, but Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s responses improperly incorporated objections into each response.  Defendant contends Defendant is entitled to responses to the special interrogatories and RPDs without any objections.

Defendant served the subject special interrogatories and RPDs on Plaintiff on December 22, 2021.  (Mot. Exh. 3.)  On January 24, 2022, Defendant granted an extension to Plaintiff with responses being due February 23, 2022.  (Id. at Exh. 4.)  Thereafter, Defendant granted another extension to Plaintiff to serve responses by March 8, 2022.  (Id. at Exh. 5.)  Plaintiff did not request any further extensions but also did not serve responses by March 8, 2022.  After Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff to attempt to obtain responses after the deadline passed, Plaintiff served responses on May 9, 2022.  (Id. at Exhs. 6-8.)  Plaintiff’s responses incorporated objections into each response.  (Id. at Exh. 11.) 

Because Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to the special interrogatories and RPDs, Plaintiff waived all objections to the discovery, including those based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a) [The party to whom the requests are “directed waives any objection…, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.”]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-04.)  Moreover, it is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege or objection.  (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95; see also Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”].)  Plaintiff did not file an opposition addressing his position regarding the waived objections, and he did not appear at the Informal Discovery Conference scheduled to address this discovery issue.  Thus, Plaintiff does not establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the responses. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, are granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections within 20 days. 

            No sanctions are requested, and none 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 10^th day of January 2023