Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV09051, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09051    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Morad Ben Neman to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses from Morad Ben Neman to its Request for Admissions (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Morad Ben Neman to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Morad Ben Neman to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Shawn Simon Neman to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Shawn Simon Neman to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Los Angeles ML, LLC to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses from Pacific Printex Corp. to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant Morad Ben Neman’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is denied.

Plaintiff Almost Nothing, Inc. (“Almost Nothing”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed to compel further responses from Defendant Morad Ben Neman (“Morad”) (“Defendant”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) and requests sanctions against Morad in the total amount of $4,090.  (Notice Motion Morad RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Morad to its Request for Admissions (Set One) (“RFA”).  (Notice Motion Morad RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2033.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Morad to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“FROG”).  (Notice Motion Morad FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2030.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Morad to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”).  (Notice Motion Morad SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2030.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Defendant Shawn Simon Neman (“Shawn”) (“Defendant”) to its Request for Admissions (Set One) (“RFA”) and requests sanctions against Shawn in the total amount of $2,595.  (Notice Motion Shawn RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2033.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Shawn to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”).  (Notice Motion Shawn SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2030.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Defendant Los Angeles ML, LLC (“LAML”) (“Defendant”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) and requests sanctions against LAML in the total amount of $1,710.  (Notice Motion LAML RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel further responses from Defendant Pacific Printex Corp. (“PPC”) (“Defendant”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) and requests sanctions against PPC in the total amount of $1,710.  (Notice Motion PPC RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq.)

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motions on the basis Plaintiff failed to follow the Information Regarding Procedures in Department 71, which requires that “[p]arties seeking to compel further responses to discovery, must schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) before the Court will hear their motions. The Court may deny a motion to compel further responses to discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on the motion.”  (Information Regarding Procedures, pg. 4.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

Morad filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further RFAs, requesting sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,750.00 for having to oppose the instant motion.  (Opposition Morad RFA, pg. 2.)  However, Morad’s notice of opposition does not provide the code section under which it seeks sanctions against Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Court declines to grant Morad’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  April _____, 2024