Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV36594, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 19STCV36594    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,  

 

Petitioner, 

 

vs. 

 

 

CRAIG SMITH, 

 

Respondent. 

CASE NO.: 23STCV09782 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITIONER MOTIONS FOR ORDERS COMPELLING RESPONDENT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

 

Dept. 27 

1:30 p.m. 

February 16, 2024 

 

 

Moving Party: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party: Unopposed

 

On May 2, 2023, Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed its petition to open an unlimited civil court file to establish jurisdiction over underinsured motorist arbitration matters pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2(f) involving Respondent Craig Smith (“Respondent”) and arising from a motor vehicle accident on March 30, 2019. Now Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent to respond to discovery requests. Petitioner does not request sanctions.

Petitioner states that on February 14, 2023, it served Respondent with Form Interrogatories (Set No. One), Special Interrogatories (Set No. One), and Inspection Demand (Set No. One), but to date, Respondent has not served responses to the discovery.  (Declarations of Angelika Hakopian, ¶¶ 3-4.)  Petitioner requests the Court to order Respondent to serve responses within 20 days. 

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.) 

Respondent did not oppose the motions and it is undisputed that responses were not served.  Petitioner’s motions are GRANTED and Respondent is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories (Set No. One), Special Interrogatories (Set No. One), and Inspection Demand (Set No. One) within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Monetary Sanctions 

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

As Petitioner does not request monetary sanctions, none shall be imposed.

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 16th day of February 2024 

  

 

 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court