Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV35133, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

 PLEASE NOTE:    

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.  

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit. 

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.  

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email. 

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. 

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present. 

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.     

Case Number: 20STCV35133    Hearing Date: November 29, 2023    Dept: 30

JUN LI vs ANDREW JIMENEZ

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, and request for production, are DENIED as moot.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  Defendant is ordered to give notice.

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the opposition. Further, Plaintiff has filed a reply on the merits, and has not argued Plaintiff has suffered any prejudice.

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant. (Jin Decl., ¶ 11; Exhs. A.) Responses were due on or before May 9, 2023. No responses have been provided.

In opposition, defense counsel states that the discovery responses were provided on November 17, 2023. The initial delay of serving verified responses arose from a mass exodus of attorneys and support staff in defense counsel’s firm which has caused a backlog in many of the pending cases and discovery requests. In addition to the mass exodus defense counsel has been engaged in multiple trials, including four within the month of September and October, in which three has reached verdict and another which was settled after jury was selected, there has been a delay in the responses.

As verified responses have now been provided as to all of the discovery at issue, the motions are denied as moot.       

Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) allow for sanctions when the motion is unsuccessfully opposed. Here, the motions were not unsuccessfully opposed. Thus, the request is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the misuse of discovery is also denied, as "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.)