Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV12138, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12138 Hearing Date: February 3, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
On April 11,
2022, Plaintiffs Raymond Gabriel Aycock (“Aycock”) and Maria Magdalena Garcia
(“Garcia”) filed this action against Defendant Jessica Rodriguez (“Defendant”) for
injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. On May 17, 2022, Defendant served Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One)
(collectively the “Discovery”) on Aycock (hereinafter referred to as
“Plaintiff”). Having received no
responses, Defendant proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to
provide responses.
Compel
Responses
Where a party fails to serve timely
responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 403.) A party that fails to serve
timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on
privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a),
2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to
compel further responses, a motion to
compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding
party has no meet and confer obligations.
(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting,
Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at
p. 404.)
To date, Plaintiff has failed to
provide responses to the Discovery.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with his discovery obligation.
.Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s Responses to the Discovery is GRANTED[
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 3rd day of February 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court
|