Judge Linda S. Marks, Case 2021-01184327 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01184327, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

4. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
5. Motion to Compel Production filed by Ranvir Singh on 7/26/22

It is noted that on 11/17/22, Defendants filed a document entitled “Declaration of Scott A. Sheikih In Response to Motions to Compel”. The Declaration does not state or identify which Motions the Declaration is filed in support of and no hearing dates are listed.

Motion 1:

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Itbra, Inc. dba Colony Inn (“Defendant”) states that Responses are being prepared and will be served within the next 1-2 weeks. As such, the Motion appears moot. Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories within the next 15-calendar days.

Here, Defendant failed to oppose the Motion. As such, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify any of the objections asserted in the Response.

Tentative Ruling: The unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, if not moot by the time of this hearing, is GRANTED.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion 2:

Here, Defendant failed to oppose the Motion. As such, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify any of the objections asserted in the Response.

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gurdev Sing (“Defendant”) states that Responses are being prepared and will be served within the next 1-2 weeks. As such, the Motion may be moot by the time of hearing.

Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories within the next 15-calendar days.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion 3:

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sarabjit Kaur (“Defendant”) states that Responses are being prepared and will be served within the next 1-2 weeks. As such, the Motion may be moot.

Here, Defendant failed to oppose the Motion. As such, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify any of the objections asserted in the Response.

Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories within the next 15-calendar days.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion 4:

Here, Defendant failed to oppose the Motion. As such, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify any of the objections asserted in the Response.

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sarabjit Kaur (“Defendant”) states that Responses are being prepared and will be served within the next 1-2 weeks. As such, the Motion may be moot.

Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Special Interrogatories within the next 15-calendar days.

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion 5:

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Here, Defendant failed to oppose the Motion. As such, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to justify any of the objections asserted in the Response.

Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Production is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Request for Production of Documents within the next 15-calendar days.

Sanctions:

Defense counsel states in his declaration, he has been having on going health issues; he requested his clients retain new counsel which they are in the process of doing but is having a hard time because of speaking limited English; that on 7/26, several motions to compel were served; and that Defendants are nearly done responding to the requests and will be sending the Responses over the next 1-2 weeks. Counsel also states that his office requested an extension to respond to the discovery on 5/23/22 due to his health and SINGH’s counsel stated she would only grant the request if Defendants agreed to waive all objections which is why Defendants served only objections in the Responses. (See Sheikh Decl., ¶¶ 2-9.)

Counsel for SINGH should have agreed to provide an extension to respond to the discovery and stating an extension would be granted only if Ds agreed to waive objections was not in good faith.

Moving Party is to give notice.