Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV37756, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37756    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ISAAC CORTEZ,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

DESIREE HINDMAN, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.: 20STCV37756

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

 

(1)   DEFENDANT SEVAK DERSARKISSIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, TO PLAINTIFF ISAAC CORTEZ

(2)   DEFENDANT SEVAK DERSARKISSIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, TO PLAINTIFF ISAAC CORTEZ

(3)   DEFENDANT SEVAK DERSARKISSIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, TO PLAINTIFF ISAAC CORTEZ

(4)   DEFENDANT SEVAK DERSARKISSIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO PLAINTIFF ISAAC CORTEZ

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

April 27, 2023

 

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff Isaac Cortez filed this action against defendants Desiree Hindman, Sevak Dersarkissian, Selina Dersarkissian, and Lyft, Inc., for injuries arising from an October 4, 2018 motor vehicle accident.        

On December 13, 2022, Defendant Sevak Dersarkissian (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission.  Defendant does not seek sanctions.

The motion is unopposed.

II.                LEGAL STANDARDS

A.    Initial Discovery Responses

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

III.             DISCUSSION

A.    Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Defendant served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiff, July 8, 2022.  Responses were due August 8, 2022 but Plaintiff did not provide responses.  On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension to provide responses to Defendant’s discovery requests.  Plaintiff requested additional extensions on September 19, 2022, and October 17, 2022.  To date, Plaintiff has yet to provide responses to the at-issue discovery requests.  (See Takash Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production are waived. 

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents.  In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, against Plaintiff. 

IV.             CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.   

Plaintiff Isaac Cortez is ordered to provide verified responses to Set One of Defendant Sevak Dersarkissian’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, and to produce all documents in her possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Demand for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.  Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted against Plaintiff. 

Moving party to give notice.

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.

                                                                                                 Dated this 27th day of April 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court