Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV14541, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14541    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff Andres Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Dugan Holdings, LLC, John Higgins, and Does 1 to 100, alleging a cause of action for premises liability.  

On September 6, 2023, Defendant Dugan Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) filed three motions to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 

On November 1, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff represented that new counsel would be taking over the case. 

No opposition or reply has been filed in the instant motions.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

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.)¿ 

III.             DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that, even though three separate motions were filed, they are all identical in so far as they rely on the same legal arguments and exhibits. Thus, for citing purposes, the Court shall reference just one motion.  

Defendant argues they electronically served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on June 1, 2023.  (Decl. Shyer, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on July 5, 2023.  (Id.)  After receiving no responses, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on July 25 and August 6 to inquire about the status of the discovery responses.   (Decl. Shyer, ¶¶ 4, 5.)  To date, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not responded.

There is no evidence before the Court indicating that Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s discovery demands.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.   

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Andres Flores is ordered to provide verified responses without objections. 

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 8th day of November 2023