Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV39059, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39059    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

¿ 

Hearing Date:           4/3/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:       21STCV39059 SONIA NARANJO vs CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

Motion:                    MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

Moving Party:           Defendant City of Hawaiian Gardens

Responding Party:    Plaintiff

Notice:                     Sufficient

¿¿ 

Ruling:                     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

¿

On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present premises liability case. On November 7, 2023, Defendant propounded its third set of requests for production, seeking documents from one of Plaintiff’s prior slip and fall cases at Walmart.  On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff provided timely discovery responses. The Parties subsequently met and conferred over Defendant’s initial responses and attended an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on February 8, 2024. On February 12, 2024, acting on the Court's advice from the IDC, Plaintiff produced redacted versions of the Walmart case deposition transcript, interrogatories, and the Independent Medical Examination (IME) report. However, Defendant found these document productions unsatisfactory and, on March 8, 2024, moved the Court to compel further responses. Plaintiff argued that the motion is moot because she complied with the Court's instructions, produced documents recommended by the Court, and on March 19, 2024, served verified further responses. Defendant did not file a reply.

Since Plaintiff served further responses on March 19, 2024, and produced redacted versions of the Walmart case deposition transcript, interrogatories, and the Independent Medical Examination (IME) report on February 12, 2024, pursuant to the Court's advice, the present motion is moot and is therefore DENIED. Should Defendant take issue with Plaintiff's further responses, the Parties are required to meet and confer, attend a new Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) before filing a new motion to compel further.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED, as Defendant acted with substantial justification. Although Plaintiff produced documents as per the Court's advice during the IDC, verified further responses were only served after the filing of the motion.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.