Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV31561, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31561 Hearing Date: December 12, 2023 Dept: 27
Kevin Joshua Rogoff, et al. v. Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al.
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2023 |
[UNOPPOSED]
Motions:
1. Motion
to Compel Plaintiff Judith Rogoff’s Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial
Interrogatories (Set One)
2. Motion
to Compel Plaintiff Nefretiri Rogoff’s Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial
Interrogatories (Set One)
3. Motion
to Compel Plaintiff Kevin Joshua Rogoff’s Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial
Interrogatories (Set One)
4. Motion
to Compel Plaintiff Fanny Valenzuela’s Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial
Interrogatories (Set One)
TENTATIVE
All four Motions are GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to provide responses within 30 days.
Background
This
case stems from an automobile collision between Judith Rogoff, Nefretiri
Rogoff, Joshua Rogoff, and Fanny Valenzuela (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Marcelino
Cipriano Barrozo,[1]who
was driving a bus for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (“LACMTA”). Plaintiffs also sued the City of Los Angeles, the County
of Los Angeles, and the California Department of Transportation.
On
November 15, 2023, the LACMTA and Marcelino Cipriano Barrozo (collectively,
“Defendants”), filed four motions to compel pretrial interrogatories:
1.
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Judith Rogoff’s
Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial Interrogatories (Set One)
2.
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Nefretiri Rogoff’s
Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial Interrogatories (Set One)
3.
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kevin Joshua Rogoff’s
Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial Interrogatories (Set One)
4.
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Fanny Valenzuela’s
Responses to Defendant’s Pretrial Interrogatories (Set One)
(collectively, the “Motions”)
The Motions are unopposed.
Discussion
Legal Standard
If a party
to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the
propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary
sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely
respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless
“[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial
compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the
result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290, subds.
(a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel
where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a
party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the
moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the
opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of
any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d
902, 905-906.)
If a motion
to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a
monetary sanction against the losing party “unless it finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the
Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even
though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was
withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after
the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)
Analysis
Each
Motion provides the Declaration of Gillian N. Pluma (“Pluma Dec.”), which
states that pretrial interrogatories were propounded on July 18, 2023, with
initial responses due on August 19, 2023. (Pluma Dec., ¶ 4.) After three
separate extensions were granted to Plaintiffs, no responses were ever served.
(Pluma Dec., ¶¶ 5-8.) Accordingly, the Motions are granted.
Conclusion
All
four Motions are GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to provide
responses within 30 days.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.