Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03025, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03025, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03025 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: C

PRECIADO v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.: 23NWCV03025

HEARING: 10/31/24

I. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE ARIA’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is DENIED as MOOT.

II. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff ASTERIA ARIA’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is DENIED as MOOT.

Moving Party to give notice.

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiffs LAUREN PRECIADO; DIANNA FERNANDEZ; JOSE ARIAS; and ASTERIA ARIAS on September 21, 2023.

The Subject Motions to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents were filed on May 23, 2024.

In a Consolidated Opposition to the Subject Motions, Plaintiffs indicate that amended, verified responses and responsive documents were served on October 17, 2024—after the Motions were filed.

In the Reply documents filed on October 24, 2024, Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”) admits that untimely supplemental responses have been served, but maintains that monetary sanctions are justified.

Where supplemental responses were served after a motion to compel further is filed, the Court has discretion to deny a motion to compel further as moot, and just impose sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)

It is undisputed that supplemental responses and documents were served after the subject Motions were filed. The sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses are not at issue here. Where supplemental responses were served after the date the Motions were filed, there is nothing further to compel and the Motions to Compel Further Responses are DENIED as MOOT.

However, it is also undisputed that supplemental requests were not served until after the Subject Motions were filed. The Court finds good cause for the issuance of reasonable monetary sanctions as follows:

Plaintiff JOSE ARIA and his counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $500.00 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs.) no later than 90 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.

Plaintiff ASTERIA ARIA and her counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $500.00 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs.) no later than 90 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.