Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02301, Date: 2024-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02301    Hearing Date: November 1, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Grigor Aghekyan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that he was injured, and his car was damaged, when a bus operated by Defendant struck the open door of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Defendant does not request sanctions in connection with these three motions.

Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed acquiescence to its merits. On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, informing that he now represents himself in this action. Upon review, Defendant’s motions appear to have been properly served on Plaintiff via U.S. mail.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand to produce documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300 (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On June 18, 2024, Defendant served their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD on Plaintiff via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Saroukhanioff Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses to these discovery demands were due by July 22, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On July 23, 2024, having received the substitution of attorney, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff via U.S. mail requesting responses and granting an extension to August 5, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Defendant states they have received no discovery responses or requests for extension from Plaintiff as of filing these motions.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel initial response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD are GRANTED.

Sanctions

No sanctions were sought by Defendant.  As such, the Court declines to award sanctions in connection with these motions.

--- 

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 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on November 1, 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 RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED. 

FURTHER RESPONSES DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.   

DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 1, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles