Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26863, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26863    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Yehiel Yanai Van to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 16, 19, 21, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 42, and 47; and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 4 through 6, 7 through 10, 11 through 19, and 20 through 35. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 35 and 99, and Set Two, Nos. 1 through 25.

As a threshold issue, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), and section 2031.310, subdivision (c), require that a motion to compel further responses be filed within 45 days of service of the responses, unless the deadline has been extended by agreement or court order. However, the motion fails to identify when Defendant served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One or Set Two, or to Requests for Production, Set One or Set Two. Neither the motion nor the supporting declaration addresses the timeliness of the present motions.

The only clue on this issue comes from documents attached to the motion, which show that Defendant served further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, on March 7, 2025, with a statement that verifications would follow. However, because Plaintiff’s declaration does not address the timeliness issue, it remains unclear whether verifications were ever provided, and if so, when. Moreover, the responses served on March 7, 2025, appear to address only Nos. 16, 24, 27, and 36, while Plaintiff’s motion to compel further involves significantly more interrogatories from Set One. Plaintiff did not attach a copy of Defendant’s initial responses to Set One or indicate when those responses were served.

As to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Defendant’s responses were served on February 28, 2025. A verification was not attached to the responses, and it is unclear whether a verification was ever provided. But, the Set Two Interrogatory responses consist entirely of objections, which do not require verification in the first place.

The same issues apply to Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Regarding Requests for Production, Set One, Plaintiff attached only Defendant’s further responses, served on March 7, 2025, which included a statement that verification would follow. However, it is unclear whether any verification was ever served. Moreover, the further responses include only No. 35, not No. 99, which is apparently also at issue. As to Requests for Production, Set Two, Defendant served responses on February 28, 2025. It is unclear whether verifications were ever provided, but the responses appear to consist entirely of objections, which do not require verification.

In light of the response dates of February 28 and March 7, the present motion, filed on May 12, 2025, is beyond the 45-day deadline to compel further responses to all the requests at issue. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of a written agreement or stipulation extending the deadline, nor do the moving papers address the issue of timeliness. Furthermore, although Defendant raised the timeliness issue in opposition, Plaintiff did not file a reply to contest it.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the burden to demonstrate that the motions are timely. For this reason, the motions are denied.

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’s 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.