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. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[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
|