Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 19STCV42431, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

On February 14, 2023, Defendant, Universal Protection Service LP, filed these motions to compel verified responses to Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff, Richrd Harris. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff. Plaintiff is self-represented.

The motions were heard on August 24, 2023. The Court found that the motions were procedurally defective because the proofs of service indicated Plaintiff, in pro per, was not served with these motions pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (c)(3)(B). The Court continued the motions to allow Defendant to serve Plaintiff with notice of these motions by non-electronic means.

The Court notes that Defendant has not filed any proof of service or other document indicating that Plaintiff has now been served with these motions by non-electronic means.[1] As such, the motions are CONTINUED to October 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM. Defendant is to file proof of service of these motions by non-electronic means no later than 5 court days before the rescheduled hearing. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in sanctions and denial of the motions.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed a “Response to Additional Interrogatories, Set One. It is not clear whether Plaintiff’s filing is meant to be responsive to the discovery requests that are the subject of this motion. If so, it is likewise unclear whether Plaintiff has properly served those responses. The Court will hear from the parties on this issue.