Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Professional Negligence Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL GUASSAC VS SEVILLA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 06/08/2023

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AGAINST DEFENDANTS, LAW OFFICES OF SEVILLA AND ASSOCIATES IS GRANTED. Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One, in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 on Law Offices of Sevilla and Associates on April 10, 2023. Plaintiff served 283 Interrogatories which violates the 'Rule of 35'. Special Interrogatories are limited to 35 absent a 'declaration of necessity.' [CCP 2030.030(a)(1)] Plaintiff provided a declaration indicating: 'This number special interrogatories is warranted under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.030. because the complexity and the quantity of issues in the instant lawsuit warrant this number of requests for admission.' [sic] 'None of the requests in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for the party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.' The Court has not received any substantive opposition from defendants. The Opposition filed indicates that 'during the court's informal discovery conference, plaintiff agreed to allow defendant to answer to the discovery request' and that the Court directed the parties to meet and confer. Defendant argues that compliance with the court order and the court timelines. However, it is not clear that responses to the Special Interrogatories were provided as requested. Nor has defendant addressed the Declaration of Necessity.

Defendant has also not explained sufficiently any effort to meet and confer on the issues. The Court notes that prior to the filing of a motion to compel (where no responses have been served), there is no requirement for the party to meet and confer before a motion to compel original responses. CCP 2030.290.

Plaintiff is to respond within 20 days.

Sanctions are DENIED. The amount of sanctions has not been properly noticed.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTION IS GRANTED. According to the motion, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 on Law Offices of Sevilla and Associates on March 30, 2023. The Opposition received by the Court does not substantively address the Form Interrogatories. In the Reply, plaintiff acknowledges some responses were served on or about August 31, 2023. However, plaintiff indicates that the responses were only objections.

As stated above, defendant only argue that the Court directed the parties to meet and confer. There is no substantive opposition to requests. Responses are due within 20 days. Sanctions are DENIED. There has been no notice or support for the amount of sanctions.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983825  36 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GUASSAC VS SEVILLA [IMAGED]  37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL OBJECTION IS GRANTED. Plaintiff propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, et seq., on Law Offices of Sevilla and Associates on March 30, 2023. As with the other discovery, there is no substantive opposition to the motion.

Plaintiff's Motion to DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED. Plaintiff propounded Request for Admissions, Set One, in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010, et seq., on Law Offices of Sevilla and Associates on March 30, 2023.

While there seem to be some sort of responses on August 31, 2023, plaintiff argues that the responses were only objections. Tardy responses waive objections and there has been no request by the defendant for relief from the waiver.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983825  36