Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV46944, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46944    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Leonide Hotel’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production from Plaintiffs Sherry Wright, Nonillion Green, Lloyd Taylor, Sara Walker, Paul Shaw, Paula Smith, Woody Derrick Russell, Alonzo Rubalcaba, Derrick Matthew Knight, Marcia Green, Reginald Drummer, Judith Brown, Jacquelyn Armstrong, Kerwin Barber, and Reginald Armstrong are GRANTED. Code compliant objection free responses shall be served within 30 days.

Defendant to give notice.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Defendant Leonide Hotel (Defendant) served form and special interrogatories and requests for production upon Plaintiffs Sherry Wright, Nonillion Green, Lloyd Taylor, Sara Walker, Paul Shaw, Paula Smith, Woody Derrick Russell, Alonzo Rubalcaba, Derrick Matthew Knight, Marcia Green, Reginald Drummer, Judith Brown, Jacquelyn Armstrong, Kerwin Barber, and Reginald Armstrong (Plaintiffs) on December 21, 2022. (Meekay Decl. ¶ 3.) The deadline to respond to the discovery was extended by agreement to August 14, 2023. (Meekay Decl. ¶ 9.) The deadline has passed without response. (Meekay Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.)

Defendant has shown that discovery was sent to Plaintiffs, the deadline for response has passed, and no responses have been provided. No opposition to the motions has been filed.

The motions are therefore GRANTED.