Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV29577, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29577    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: 17

 Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $3,500.

On 9/12/2022, Plaintiff Thomas D. Perez and Delia Lopez De Perez initiated tis suit against 31 Defendants, alleging: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability—failure to warn; (3) strict liability—design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium.

            On 9/4/2024, Defendant R.R. Street & co. Inc. (Street), on behalf of all Defendants, moved to compel further responses from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ Joint Requests for Production of Documents to Perez (Perez Discovery) and Joint Requests for Production of Documents to Villalobos (Villalobos Discovery).

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that a Court order is necessary to compel Plaintiffs to make further responses to Request Nos. 1–6 of the Perez Discovery and Request Nos. 1–2, 4–6, and 8–10 of the Villalobos Discovery jointly propounded by Defendants to Plaintiffs.

            Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ responses served on July 16, 2024 are deficient in three respects:

-          For all requests, Plaintiffs failed to respond with valid objections, an agreement to comply, or compliance, contravening CCP §§ 2031.210 and 2031.280(a), and thus “compliance with the demands [are] incomplete” contravening CCP § 2031.310(a)(1) and/or include meritless objections that are “without merit or too general,” contravening CCP § 2031.310(a)(3). Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ assertions of privilege are not accompanied by a privilege log, contravening CCP § 2031.240(c)(1).

-          For other requests, Plaintiffs promised they would “comply with [each] demand by producing all non-privileged documents,” but in fact produced no documents whatsoever, contravening CCP § 2030.320(a).

-          For other requests, Plaintiffs stated that they “already complied” with each request, but in fact, had not searched for all documents within Mrs. Villalobos’ possession, custody, or control pertaining to the documents referenced in her deposition, contravening CCP § 2031.310(a).

Defendants represent that despite at least 9 attempts on the part of Street’s counsel to resolve this matter informally, Plaintiffs never responded to any of the messages.

After review, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ responses to be deficient. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose this motion in any way is taken as a concession on the merits. It also indicates that sanctions are appropriate, as Plaintiffs have offered no justification for their repeated failure.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel further responses is granted. Plaintiffs are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $3,500. ($350/hr x 10 hr).

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.