Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV09914, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV09914 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 71
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
| Hearing Date: April 16, 2024
|
Plaintiffs Neldra E. Davis’ and Charles F. Davis Jr.’s unopposed motion to compel further responses to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied.
Plaintiffs Neldra E. Davis (“Neldra”) and Charles F. Davis Jr. (“Charles”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move unopposed to compel further responses from Defendant Kia America, Inc. (“KA”) (“Defendant”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 16-21, and to strike Defendant’s meritless objections. (Notice Motion, pgs. i-ii; C.C.P. §2031.310.)
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on the basis Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is denied.
Moving Party to give notice.
|
|
Judge of the Superior Court
|
