Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00552, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00552    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23BBCV00552

NOTICE: 

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412. 

ALLEGATIONS:  

Anthony Mark and Angelino Sebastian Mark, by and through his guardian ad litem Jocelle Maliwanag, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Circle K Outfitters Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s negligence caused personal injury to Angelino Sebatian Mark when they permitted him to ride a horse on their property without the appropriate safety equipment.   

Before the Court are two motions brought by Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to their Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. Defendant opposes the motions, arguing they are mooted by subsequent responses being served. Plaintiffs have filed no reply. 

ANALYSIS:  

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) 

II.              MERITS 

Motions to Compel Further Responses 

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded their Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories set one on Defendant via electronic service on Defendant’s counsel. (Coppock Decl. ¶ 3-4, Exhs. C-D.) On October 10, 2023, Defendant served objection only responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. (Coppock Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exhs. G-H.) The parties thereafter met and conferred, and Defendant indicated they would serve additional responses. (Coppock Decl. ¶ 11.) Between October 10 and November 29, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out several times, but further responses were never received. (Coppock Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.) On November 20, 2023, the parties agreed via email to extend the deadline to file this motion to January 12, 2024, if no further responses were received. (Coppock Decl. ¶ 14.) Despite the promise that further responses would be served on November 29, 2023, they were not. (Coppock Decl. Exh. L.) 

In opposition Defendant argues that the motions before the Court are mooted by subsequent production. Defendant states they served further responses to the interrogatories on January 12, 2024. (Richards Decl. ¶ 1, Exh. 1.) Defendant’s counsel states that he did everything in his power to provide discovery responses and avoid these motions. (Richards Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant’s counsel states that there was an unexpected delay in providing further responses which was the result of communication issues with the Defendant, though he does not endeavor to explain the nature of this issue any further. (Richards Decl. ¶ 3.) 

The Court agrees with Defendant that the motions to compel further responses are mooted by subsequent production. Plaintiffs’ motions are based on the original objection only responses. Should the subsequent responses prove insufficient, Plaintiffs retain the right to refile this motion with appropriate briefing. 

Accordingly, the motions to compel are DENIED as MOOT. 

Sanctions 

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. As per C.C.P. § 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. 

Here, Defendant failed to produce the promised further discovery responses until after these motions to compel were filed. However, the meet and confer correspondence shows that Defendant’s counsel agreed that the 45-day time limit to file these motions would not run until further responses were served. (Coppock Decl. Exh. L.) Despite the fact that the parties agreed Plaintiffs had until January 12, 2024, to file these motions, Plaintiffs chose to file the motions on December 8, 2023. 

Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel explicitly stated in a November 16, 2023 email that they would withdraw their motions and request for sanctions upon service of compliant responses. (Coppock Decl. Exh. L.) Defendant served their responses on January 12, 2024, however, Plaintiff’s motions remain on calendar. Whether this is because Plaintiffs believe the responses to be non-compliant is unclear, as Plaintiffs have filed no reply to the opposition. 

While Plaintiffs were within their right to file these motions, their choice to accelerate the matter before the agreed upon deadline indicates the motions could have been avoided entirely. Given the circumstances, the Court declines to grant sanctions in the matter.

--- 

RULING: 

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.  

ORDER

Anthony Mark & Angelino Sebastian Mark’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on January 26, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:  

THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTEROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ARE DENIED AS MOOT.   

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE NOTICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 26, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        Yolanda Orozco, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles