Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02293, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02293, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02293 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: C

SMITH v. QUININE

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02293

HEARING: 11/21/24

Defendant MARIA LILLIANA RAMIREZ’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) from Plaintiff MASIAH SMITH, a minor through her GAL Jalia Stephens, is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Lilliana Ramirez (“Plaintiff”), a minor, through her GAL Jalia Stephens, filed this personal injury suit against Defendants Deon Quinine, Los Anqeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, and Maria Lilliana Ramirez arising from a motor vehicle collision on December 22, 2022 on Long Beach Ave., 10 feet South of Vernon Ave, at a railroad intersection. The sole cause of action is for negligence.

Defendant Maria Lilliana Ramirez moves to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) from Plaintiff.

No Opposition filed as of November 18, 2024. Due by November 7, 2024. (CCP §1005(b).)

If a party to whom document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP § 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that Request for Production of Documents (set one) was properly served onto Plaintiff on March 18, 2024. The original deadline, and multiple extensions to respond granted by Defendant’s Counsel have expired. No responses of any kind have been provided. This Motion was filed on July 9, 2024—almost four months after service of the discovery. As of November 18, 2024, no Opposition has been filed.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s former counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record was granted on July 11, 2024. As of the date of this hearing, Plaintiff is self-represented.

The unopposed Motions to Compel is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents, without objection by no later than 30 days from date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Reasonable sanctions are GRANTED in the total amount of $360.00. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Defendant and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $360.00, payable within 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.