Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV03853, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV03853 Hearing Date: February 22, 2023 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. JOSE IVAN CANALES VALLADARES, ET AL., Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AGAINST N. MONTOYA TRUCKING, INC. Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 22, 2023 |
Plaintiff Juan Jose Oreallana (“Plaintiff”) filed this against Defendants Jose Ivan Canales Valladares and N. Montoya Trucking, Inc. (“Montoya Trucking”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, against Montoya Trucking. Plaintiff further moves to deem Plaintiff’s request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Montoya Trucking. Each motion is made on the basis that no verified responses were served. Montoya Trucking filed an opposition to each motion. Any reply to the oppositions was due on or before February 14, 2023. To date, no reply has been received.
Plaintiff propounded the special interrogatories, RPDs and RFAs on Montoya Trucking on May 3, 2022. Plaintiff provides that after granting extensions, Montoya Trucking’s responses were due on August 22, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that as of the filing of the motions, and despite an attempt to meet and confer, Montoya Trucking had not served verified responses without objections. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Montoya Trucking to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and imposing sanctions.
Montoya Trucking, in opposition, contends that it served timely objection only responses to the special interrogatories, RPDs, and RFAs on August 22, 2022. Montoya Trucking argues that Plaintiff received the responses before the motions were filed, and that it thus has not waived its objections to the discovery requests.
Montoya Trucking’s responses the special interrogatories, RPDs and RFAs contained solely objections.[1] Consequently, the responses were not required to be verified. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, 40 Cal.App.4th at 657.) Furthermore, although Plaintiff asserts that no responses were served by Montoya Trucking, Montoya Trucking’s evidence shows that it served the responses on August 22, 2022, which was the deadline based on the extension Plaintiff granted.
Plaintiff does not otherwise establish that Montoya Trucking waived all objections to the subject discovery. The email communications submitted by Plaintiff concerning the extensions granted to Montoya Trucking to serve responses do not state that Montoya Trucking had waived any objections, or that the extensions were conditioned on a waiver of objections.
Because Montoya Trucking served objection only responses on Plaintiff on August 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and RPDs and the motion to deem RFAs admitted against Montoya Trucking, each made under the Code of Civil Procedure sections authorizing a motion to compel when no responses are served at all, are denied. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.310, 2033.280.) No sanctions are requested by Montoya Trucking, and none are awarded.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 22nd day of February 2023
| |
Hon. Audra Mori Judge of the Superior Court |
[1] In its opposition to the motion to compel responses to RPDs, Montoya Trucking states that attached as Exhibit A is Montoya Trucking’s response to the RPDs. However, Exhibit A attached to this opposition is a copy of Montoya Trucking’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs, not Plaintiff’s RPDs. Nevertheless, defense counsel attests that Montoya Trucking served timely objections to the RPDs on August 22, 2022, (Opp. to RPDs Sepidnameh Decl. ¶ 4), and Plaintiff did not file a reply or otherwise dispute that Montoya Trucking’s responses to the RPDs contained objections only.