Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV36175 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Sandra Martinez Basurto (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability against Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super (“Defendant”). This matter arises from a slip and fall incident.

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to From Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). On January 11, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion. On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Opposition.

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing. (See Govt. Code § 70617(a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing); see also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) (“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”))

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff improperly filed a motion to compel further responses for two separate discovery requests as one single filing. Plaintiff was required to file two separate motions.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay $60, which is the missing fee that Plaintiff would have paid if she filed the motions properly.

In its Opposition, Defendant represents that further responses have been provided to all of the discovery at issue, with the exception Special Interrogatories Nos. 31-33.

In her reply, Plaintiff represents that Defendant has “failed to provide supplemental responses to most discovery at issue.” (Reply p. 2.) Plaintiff also represents that some responses were improved while others were not. (Id.)

Based on the Parties representations in the opposing and reply papers, it is unclear what interrogatories remain at issue. Even Plaintiff’s representations in her Reply are somewhat inconsistent, as she represents that Defendant failed to provide supplemental responses to “most” discovery at issue, and then represents that “some” responses were improved while others were not. It appears that the Parties have resolved some of their discovery disputes, but some responses still remain at issue. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is the best use of judicial resources and in the interest of justice to continue the instant hearing to _______________, 2023.

The Court orders the Parties to meet and confer prior to filing their briefs to determine what responses remain at issue.

The Court also orders Plaintiff to file a brief 14 calendar days before the next hearing, which outlines which responses remain at issue, a separate statement that includes the interrogatories and any responses thereto, and why further responses are still required.[1] Defendant may file a reply brief, which discusses why further responses are not required, and that reply brief is due 7 calendar days before the next hearing.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) is CONTINUED to ________________, 2023. The briefing schedule for further briefing is outlined above.

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.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] To the extent the Parties cannot agree on which responses remain at issue, Plaintiff may include all of the responses that were originally at issue in the Motion.