Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01228, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01228    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      February 20, 2024                                           TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         JAMES S. DROMI ESQ., an individual, v. TETSURO SUGIYAMA, an individual; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01228

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Tetsuro Sugiyama

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff James S. Dromi

SERVICE:                              Filed January 4, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed February 5, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed February 9, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant and Cross-Complaint Tetsuro Sugiyama (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to his requests for the production of documents set two.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff James S. Dromi’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Tetsuro Sugiyama failed to pay for legal services provided in a separate criminal proceeding. Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 5, 2022, alleging four causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts, (3) account stated, and (4) open book account.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as moot.

            Defendant’s requests for sanctions is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to his requests for the production of documents set two. Defendant provides he served his requests for the production of documents on October 13, 2023. (Chaney Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant provides that Plaintiff provided deficient responses on November 14, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) In opposition, Plaintiff provides that he served amended responses on January 5, 2024. (Opposition at p. 3:25-27.) Plaintiff provides the delay in serving the amended responses was based on difficulty obtaining IT services to print and scan all the relevant documents. (Dromi Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

            Defendant’s motion is mooted by Plaintiff’s supplemental responses. Additionally, Defendant’s requests for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as moot.

            Defendant’s requests for sanctions is denied.

            Moving party to provide notice.

Dated:   February 20, 2024                                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org