Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV18158, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18158    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 30

JOSEPH LUPO, et al. vs SMBAT SHMAVONYAN, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants Hermine Shmavonyan and Smbat Shmavonyan’s motions to compel Plaintiff Joseph Lupo to provide responses to form interrogatories, and request for production of documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Joseph Lupo is ordered to provide responses without objections to Defendant’s request for form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents within 20 days of this order.

Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff Jessie Garcia to provide responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Jessie Garcia is ordered to provide responses without objections to Defendant’s request for form interrogatories, set one, within 20 days of this order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Discussion

On December 1, 2023, Defendants served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiffs Lupo and Garcia. On the same day, Defendant also served Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff Lupo. (Lee Decl., Exhs. A.) Responses were due by January 4, 2024. (Id., ¶ 4.) On January 12, 2024, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s attorney of record a meet and confer letter regarding the overdue discovery. (Id., ¶ 4; Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiffs have not served verified discovery responses and has not made any communication with defense counsel regarding the overdue responses. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration stating that responses will be provided before the hearing on this motion, and he is still recovering from chemotherapy treatments for cancer and as a result, has been unable to prepare the discovery responses.

As Defendant properly served discovery requests and Plaintiffs have failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to a court order directing Plaintiffs to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Plaintiffs. Therefore, the motions are granted. (In the event Plaintiff’s counsel has served verified responses without objections prior to the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel should appear at the hearing and inform the Court, in which case the motion will be denied as moot.)

As for sanctions, Plaintiff’s counsel has provided substantial justification for the failure to provide timely responses. Thus, the request for sanctions is denied.