Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 20-01158499, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) (3) Motion to Compel Response to RFAs (4) Motion to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:   (1-4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RPDS (ROA 229), Motion to Compel Depositions (ROA 227), Motion to Compel Answers to RFAS (ROA 225) and Motion to Compel Answers to Form Rogs (ROA 223) are DENIED. Plaintiff appears to have filed the same points and auhtorities for each motion. Plaintiff fails to provide evidence of what discovery was propounded and when. Plaintiff also fails to cite to any enabling authority for the relief requested. Finally, it appears Defendants did provide responses in the way of objections, which Plaintiff does not acknowledge. All in all, Plaintiff fails to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure or California Rules of Court in bringing these motions. Although Plaintiff is in pro per, she is held to the same restrictive procedural rules as attorneys.  (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)

Defendant to give notice.