Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00032137-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00032137-CU-BC-CTL LAW OFFICES OF ANDY VAN LE AND ASSOCIATES PC VS JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM APC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Dee Ann Summers' RFAs (ROA 39), Motion to Compel Dee Ann Summers' Responses to Special Interrogatories (ROA 41), Motion to Compel Dee Ann Summers' Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA 38), Motion to Compel Dee Ann Summers' Responses to RFPs (ROA 40) are DENIED as moot. However, sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $1,000.

As an initial matter, only one motion to compel was calendared. Because the parties have fully briefed all four motions, the court has considered them. However, in the future any motions to compel by Plaintiff's firm in this department will not be heard if not properly calendared.

The court retains discretion to hear a motion to compel even if untimely responses are served. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409 (Sinaiko).) Through this discretion, the court 'might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as [a motion to compel further responses] and . . . order the propounding party to 'meet and confer' . . . and file a separate statement . . . ; or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion [to compel further responses].' (Ibid.) Here, the court does not have the benefit of separate statements and finds it appropriate to order the parties to meet and confer in good faith and, if necessary and notwithstanding the court's earlier admonishment, to file one consolidated motion with attached separate statements to be heard on an expedited basis. The court notes that this process is unique to these motions due to the length of time they have been outstanding and again reminds the parties that consolidated discovery motions are not usually appropriate in this department absent leave of court. The court grants sanctions in favor of Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $1,000.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003977  10