Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02449, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02449    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 10-7-24

Case #23CHCV02449, Cesar Buenrostro vs. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Trial Date: 4-14-25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cesar Buenrostro

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Israel Junior Colon and City of Los Angeles

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant’s further responses to certain special interrogatories, along with monetary sanctions.

RULING: Motion is moot.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident wherein Defendant Israel Junior Colon (Colon), an employee of Defendant City of Los Angeles (the City) struck a motor vehicle driven by Plaintiff Cesar Buenrostro (Plaintiff).

Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories on Defendant Colon on March 28, 2024. On May 13, 2023, the City served responses to the Interrogatories on behalf of Colon. On July 15, 2024, the City served further responses on behalf of Colon. On July 19, 2024, the City provided a privilege log at Plaintiff’s request, and on August 20, 2024, the City served further amended response to the Special Interrogatories.

On August 29, 2024, after the parties were unable to meet and confer regarding the further amended responses, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to the Special Interrogatories. Though Plaintiff’s motion mentions additional interrogatories (Nos. 17 through 23), Plaintiff’s separate statement only addresses Special Interrogatories Nos. 12-14 and 25. The Court will only address Nos. 12-14 and 25, as those are the ones mentioned in the separate statement. Plaintiff’s issue with Defendant’s responses is that they were based on unmeritorious objections.

In Defendant’s opposition, filed on September 23, 2024, Defendant indicates that the City served additional amended responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 12-14 and 25 after the filing of Plaintiff’s motion. These responses indicated that the information is not known to Colon, that there were no prior accidents, and that no documents exists. These answers are all responsive to their respective interrogatories. Plaintiff has not filed any reply to Defendant’s opposition.

The Court has reviewed the documents submitted by the parties and has determined that the further responses submitted with Defendant’s opposition moot the motion. As for the issue of sanctions, the Court will determine at the hearing whether sanctions are warranted.

Moving party to give notice.