Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00110, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00110    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

ALLEGATIONS: 

Tatevik Grigoryan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Eleven States Transport, Inc. (Eleven States) & Edvard Gabrielyan (Gabrielyan) (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleges she was injured in a motor vehicle incident involving Gabrielyan. Plaintiff alleges that Gabrielyan was negligent in the operation of a tractor-trailer which caused him to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Gabrielyan is alleged to have been operating his vehicle in his capacity as an employee and agent of Eleven States.

Before the Court are two motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (RFPD). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks further responses to her RFPD Nos. 22, 23, 28, 29, 33, 36, 39-42, and 44-49 from both Eleven States and Gabrielyan (who are represented by the same counsel). Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to properly meet and confer, and that supplemental discovery responses render the motions moot.

Procedural Issues

The Court begins by noting a procedural defect with respect to Plaintiff’s filing. Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c) provides that a “separate statement” in conjunction with a motion to compel further responses is, “a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” Here, Plaintiff has not separately filed her separate statement, as the rules of court require. Failure to do so has resulted in a motion which is both voluminous and more arduous to review than they typical motion to compel further responses. Regardless this defect is not dispositive of the Court’s ability to adjudicate the motion.  However, Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Rules of Court in the future, and failure to do so may result in a denial without prejudice of subsequent motions.

The Court has been engaged in trial this week, and that combined with the non-code compliant issues has resulted in a delay in the Court being able to issue a tentative ruling.   As such, this matter is continue to Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10:00 AM, or such other date and time which the parties may stipulate and is available for the Court.

--- 

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 

Tatevik Grigoryan’s Motions to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on May 30, 2025, 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 ARE CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2025 AT 10:00 AM, OR SUCH OTHER DATE COUNSEL MAY STIPULATE TO AND IS AVAILABLE FOR THE COURT.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

ALL OTHER DATES REMAIN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.