Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV09782, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09782 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CRAIG SMITH, Respondent. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO.: 23STCV09782 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITIONER MOTIONS FOR ORDERS
COMPELLING RESPONDENT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. February 16, 2024 |
Moving Party: State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company
Responding Party: Unopposed
On May
2, 2023, Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioner”)
filed its petition to open an unlimited civil court file to establish
jurisdiction over underinsured motorist arbitration matters pursuant to
Insurance Code section 11580.2(f) involving Respondent Craig Smith
(“Respondent”) and arising from a motor vehicle accident on March 30, 2019. Now
Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent to respond to discovery requests. Petitioner
does not request sanctions.
Petitioner
states that on February 14, 2023, it served Respondent with Form
Interrogatories (Set No. One), Special Interrogatories (Set No. One), and
Inspection Demand (Set No. One), but to date, Respondent has not served
responses to the discovery.
(Declarations of Angelika Hakopian, ¶¶ 3-4.) Petitioner requests the Court to order
Respondent to serve responses within 20 days.
Compel
Responses
Where
a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may
make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290,
2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that
fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including
ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a),
2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses,
a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the
propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p.
404.)
Respondent did not oppose
the motions and it is undisputed that responses were not served. Petitioner’s motions are GRANTED and
Respondent is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to
Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories (Set No. One), Special
Interrogatories (Set No. One), and Inspection Demand (Set No. One) within 20 days of the date of this Order.
Monetary
Sanctions
The Code of Civil Procedure
provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the party acted with
substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c),
2031.300, subd. (c).)
As Petitioner does not
request monetary sanctions, none shall be imposed.
Moving
party to give notice.
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.
Dated this 16th day of February 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court |