Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV0650, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising Plaintiff Armando Chavez (“Plaintiff”) sustaining injuries when his electric bicycle got caught in a pothole on September 12, 2022. On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”) and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) government liability, (2) negligence, and (3) premises liability.

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which substituted Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) for Doe 1.

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion (the “Motion”) for an order to compel “Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission, Set One, which were served on October 2, 2023.” (Motion, p. 2:3-5.)

Although seeking four separate forms of relief pursuant to the Motion, Plaintiff filed a combined motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission and thus only paid one filing fee. The Court, however, will still assess the Motion on its merits.

As will be discussed below, the Court cannot grant the Motion as it is procedurally defective.

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) “If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

After service of requests for admission, a party has 30 days to respond “in writing under oath and separately to each RFA.” (St Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774.) When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to his requests for admission is procedurally inappropriate. Instead, Plaintiff should have moved to deem his requests for admission as admitted pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.

Further, the discovery at issue is not before the Court. Plaintiff merely argues that his initial set of discovery was propounded “on Defendants on October 2, 2023.” (Izadian Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff, however, has not attached the discovery at issue to the declaration of his counsel, Neekta Izadian. Thus, the Court cannot confirm that the discovery purportedly propounded was in fact Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. The Court cannot rule on a discovery motion without reviewing the discovery at issue.

Based on these procedural issues, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court recognizes the technical nature of this ruling and advises the City to provide responses to the subject discovery without further motion.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court