Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01123, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01123    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: C

HEREDIA v. ACCESS SERVICES

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01123

HEARING:  05/16/24

#8

     I.        Defendants ACCESS SERVICES; CALIFORNIA TRANSIT, INC.; and MYNOR RUBEN HERNANDEZ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

    II.        Defendants ACCESS SERVICES; CALIFORNIA TRANSIT, INC.; and MYNOR RUBEN HERNANDEZ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This motor vehicle action was filed by Plaintiff RAUL HEREDIA (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants ACCESS SERVICES; CALIFORNIA TRANSIT, INC; LOS ANGELES COUNTY; MYNOR RUBEN HERNANDEZ; and MELISSA ELAINE DOOLITTE (collectively “Defendants”) on October 27, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about December 15, 2021, PLAINTIFF, a legally blind and disabled person, contacted Defendant ACCESS SERVICES… for transportation services.” (Complaint ¶1.) “At or around 2:00PM, Plaintiff was seated in the rear of the vehicle…. The SUBJECT VAN was driving at a speed greater than reasonable having due regard for the traffic, in a manner that endangered the safety of PLAINTIFF… and was forced to rapidly decelerate ahead of the SUBJECT HONDA.” (Id. ¶5.) “DEFENDANT DOOLITTLE was driving at an unsafe and excessive speed for traffic conditions, when she failed to observe the SUBJECT VAN that was rapidly decelerating ahead of her. As a result, DEFENDANT DOOLITTLE did not stop the SUBJECT HONDA in time and collided with the SUBJECT VAN (‘SUBJECT INCIDENT’).” (Id. ¶7.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Negligence;

(2) Negligence Per Se; and

(3) Negligent Entrustment

Defendants ACCESS SERVICES; CALIFORNIA TRANSIT, INC.; and MYNOR RUBEN HERNANDEZ (collectively “Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) and Special Interrogatories (set one).

Plaintiff’s Omnibus Opposition to both Motions was supposed to be filed and served by no later than May 3, 2024. (CCP §1005(b).) However, without leave of Court, the Omnibus Opposition was untimely filed on May 9, 2024. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court exercises its discretion and considers the arguments raised in the untimely Opposition— that Plaintiff’s objections are valid; that Plaintiff provided complete and straightforward responses; and that the Motions should be denied due to Defendant’s failure to adequately meet and confer before the Motions were filed.

To ensure that Defendants/Moving Parties are not prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s untimely Opposition, the Court will hear Defendants’ oral arguments in Reply at the hearing. If necessary, the Court will continue the Motions.

Meet and Confer

Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s initial responses on November 29, 2023, demanding supplemental responses by no later than December 28, 2023. Plaintiff did not provide supplemental responses by December 28, 2023. These Motions were filed on January 5, 2024, after Defendants received no supplemental responses to the November 29, 2023 correspondence because the 45-day deadline was approaching.

The Court finds that the meet and confer that took place in this matter, sufficiently complies with CCP §2016.040.

Merits

“If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

The Motions are GRANTED in their entirety. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s initial responses to the discovery at issue and finds that they are incomplete and non-responsive. The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file or lodge a Separate Statement in Opposition to the Moving Party’s Separate Statement in support of the instant Motion. Where no Separate Statement in Opposition has been filed, Plaintiff fails to substantiate his boilerplate objections. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated objections are overruled. Plaintiff is obligated to provide full and responsive responses to the discovery at issue.

The Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further responses to Defendants Form Interrogatories (set one) and Special Interrogatories (set one), without objections, by no later than 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Sanctions

Reasonable sanctions in favor of Defendants are warranted. Plaintiff and their counsel are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay reasonable sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,050.00 ($350/hr. x 3 hrs.), payable within 30 days of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.