Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV02469, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02469    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

Obleo Federico Carbajal, et al.

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

Gomez Transportation LLC, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.: 22STCV02469

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF OBLEO CARBAJAL’S

 

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT JOSE MEJIA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

 

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT GOMEZ TRANSPORTATION LLC AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

 

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFAs 5-17 FROM DEFENDANT GOMEZ TRANSPORTATION LLC AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

[(4) SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FROM DEFENDANT GOMEZ TRANSPORTATION, LLC—NOT PROPERLY ON CALENDAR]

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

Thursday, November 9, 2023

 

          On January 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Obelo Federico Carbajal and Malissa Carbajal (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Gomez Transportation LLC (“Gomez Transportation”) and Jose Alfredo Mejia (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging:  (1) Motor Vehicle; (2) General Negligence; and (3) General Negligence/Loss of Consortium. 

          Plaintiff Obleo Carbajal was riding a bicycle at or near the curb on the Highway 110 Ramp at or near Pacific Coast Highway when he was struck by a a 2008 Freightliner Truck operated by Defendant Jose Mejia.  Defendant Mejia was allegedly operating the vehicle as an employee of Defendant Gomez Transportation LLC.  Defendant Gomez Transportation is also the alleged owner of the 2008 Freightliner Truck that struck Plaintiff Obleo.  Plaintiff Obleo suffered catastrophic injuries due to the accident.  Plaintiff Malissa Carbajal is the wife of Plaintiff Obleo and alleges loss of consortium. 

          On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Obleo served (1) Defendant Gomez Transportation with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) and (2) Defendant Mejia with Form Interrogatories (Set One).  On September 9, 2022, (1) Defendant Gomez served unverified objections to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and RFAs (Set One) Nos. 5-17; and (2) Defendant Mejia served unverified objections to the Form Interrogatories (Set One).

          On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Obleo filed three motions to compel further responses:  (1) a Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Gomez Transportation to Form and Special Interrogatories (Sets One); (2) a Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Gomez Transportation to RFAs (Set One) Nos. 5-17; and (3) a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Mejia (collectively referred to herein as the “June 27, 2023 Motions”). 

          On August 29, 2023, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference regarding the June 27, 2023 Motions.  Per the Court’s IDC order, counsel were directed to meet and confer regarding supplemental responses by September 8, 2023.  Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to file supplemental questions/responses by September 15, 2023.  Defense counsel was directed to file responses by October 6, 2023.  Plaintiff’s counsel was also ordered to prepare and submit a Notice of Outcome within five court days after the meet and confer. 

          On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff Obleo filed a “Supplemental Motion to Compel Supplemental Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Gomez Transportation, LLC” (the “Supplemental Motion”).  Based on Plaintiff’s Reply in support of the Supplemental Motion, the June 27, 2023 Motions are withdrawn and the only motion before the Court is the Supplemental Motion.  (Reply filed on November 6, 2023, 3:3-5, 8-10.)

          Defendants Gomez Transportation and Mejia filed oppositions to the June 27, 2023 Motions, arguing they are moot.  Defendant Gomez Transportation did not file an opposition to the Supplemental Motion but argues in its oppositions to the June 27, 2023 Motions that the Supplemental Motion is unauthorized and improper.  On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Supplemental Motion.  

          LEGAL STANDARD — Compel Further Responses

CCP §2030.300

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

          (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

          (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

          (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(2) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.

(e) If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

          If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories and RFAs. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

          ANALYSIS

          The June 27, 2023 Motions are off calendar.  This is undisputed. 

          However, there is a dispute as to whether the Supplemental Motion is properly on calendar for hearing today, November 9, 2023.  Plaintiff maintains the Supplemental Motion is allowed per the Court’s August 29, 2023 IDC order; Defendant Gomez argues it is not. 

          On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff Obleo served Supplemental Amended Form Interrogatories (“SA Form Rogs”) to Gomez Transportation.  (Supplemental Motion, Low Dec., ¶9.)  On October 6, 2023, Gomez Transportation filed supplemental answers to the SA Form Rogs.  (Id. at ¶9.)  Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Motion on October 18, 2023, seeking further responses from Gomez Transportation to SA Form Rogs 7.0, 12.0 and 15.0. 

          Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion is not properly before the Court.  The Supplemental Motion is an entirely different motion from those filed on June 27, 2023.  The Supplemental Motion pertains to SA Form Rogs served on September 15, 2023, and responses thereto served on October 6, 2023.  The SA Form Rogs were never the subject of the June 27, 2023 motions or the August 29, 2023 IDC. 

          In its August 29, 2023 IDC Order, no provision was made for Plaintiff to file a new Supplemental Motion to be heard on November 9, 2023.  The Court only provided that if “a hearing was necessary,” the June 27, 2023 Motions were continued to November 9, 2023.  (Minute Order dated August 29, 2023.)  The Supplemental Motion is therefore not properly before the Court or on calendar for hearing on November 9, 2023. 

          In addition, Plaintiff fails to testify to any meet and confer efforts on Defendant Gomez Transportation’s responses served on October 6, 2023, to the SA Form Rogs.  Plaintiff cannot move to compel further responses to the newly served SA Form Rogs until after he has met and conferred in good faith pursuant to CCP §2030.300(b). 

          CONCLUSION

          Plaintiff Obleo Carbajal’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Gomez Transportation to Form and Special Interrogatories (Sets One)(CRS No. 9933); (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Gomez Transportation to RFAs Nos. 5-17 (Set One)(CRS No. 8586); and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)(CRS No. 5124) from Defendant Mejia are off calendar. 

          Plaintiff Obelo Carbajal’s “Supplemental Motion to Compel Supplemental Amended Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Defendant Gomez Transporation, LLC” is not on calendar for hearing today.  Plaintiff Obelo failed to obtain a hearing date on the motion through CRS and pay a filing fee, nor was he authorized to file the Supplemental Motion for hearing on today’s date, November 9, 2023.