Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00715, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00715    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

There are 4 motions on calendar.  On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Irene Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed 3 motions to compel initial responses from Defendant Smart & Final LLC (“Defendant”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; and (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  Plaintiff also filed a motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted. 

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant the discovery requests.  Plaintiff granted Defendant numerous extensions such that the responses were due by November 21, 2023.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant served objections to the discovery requests, such that Plaintiff was forced to file these motions.  Plaintiff argues that motions to compel further responses are unnecessary since Defendant did not serve code-compliant responses (though Plaintiff has not explained how the objections are not code-compliant).  Copies of Defendant’s responses are attached to the motion paper.  The objections are dated September 5, 2023 and were served by email. 

On March 20, 2024, Defendant filed opposition briefs.  Defendant argues that it has informed Plaintiff of the need for continuances in responding to discovery and that it served the objections to preserve its rights.  It argues that it has been diligently updating Plaintiff regarding the status of the discovery and that it will, by the time of the hearing, serve responses, thereby making the motions moot.

On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed reply briefs arguing that Defendant only served responses on March 20, 2024 after delaying responses, despite 7 extensions and 2 meet and confer attempts. 

As objections were provided on September 5, 2023 and responses were provided on March 20, 2024, the motions to compel initial responses are moot.  Thus, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are denied.  Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is denied.    

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorney in the amount of $1,810 for each motion.  The requests are denied. If there are discovery delays and issues in the future, the Court would be inclined to award sanctions at that time. While Defendant’s conduct is frustrating, the right remedy is not sought at the right time.