Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22STCV12247, Date: 2023-05-26 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22STCV12247    Hearing Date: May 26, 2023    Dept: NCB

On November 9, 2022, Defendant RM Palmer Company (“Defendant”) filed 3 motions to compel initial responses from Plaintiff Greenie A. Weaver (“Plaintiff”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”); and (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”).  Defendant also filed a motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) admitted.  On March 13, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief stating that it was not in receipt of an opposition brief from Plaintiff.  On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed another reply brief stating it was not in receipt of an opposition brief.

On September 1, 2022, Defendant served on Plaintiff the discovery requests, such that responses were due by October 10, 2022.  On October 11, 2022, defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff requesting the discovery responses within 10 days.  As of the filing of the motions, Defendant states that it has not received responses from Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff did not file a written opposition, but appeared to the hearing on April 28, 2023, stating that he responded to the discovery.  Defendant/moving party did not attend the hearing.  At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that the papers were served at the incorrect address because he no longer resides at 11751 Hart Street, #6, North Hollywood, CA 91605, but he now resides at unit #4.  It does not appear that Plaintiff informed Defendant or the Court of his new address prior to the hearing, as he has not filed a notice of an updated address.  (The Court notes that Plaintiff still has not filed a notice of changed address.) 

While Plaintiff represented at the hearing that he has responded to the discovery, it is unclear when he responded to the discovery—prior to the filing of the motion or after the motion was filed—and to which sets of discovery he responded.  Out of the abundance of caution, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order.  If Plaintiff already provided responses as he represented at the April 28, 2023 hearing, he should re-serve the responses in compliance with this order.

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff (a self-represented litigant) in the amount of $672.50 per motion (= $1.15 hours to prepare the motion + 2 hours to attend the hearing at $175/hour, plus filing fees of $60).  The requests are granted, but the Court will reduce the amount to a reasonable sum of $700 (= 4 hours x $175/hour) and $240 in filing fees for these relatively simple motions.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $940 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.