Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00825, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00825    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

EGINE ARTINIAN,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

BASHIR W. MAHAMUD, SNIDER LEASING CORP., SW TRANSPORT LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV00825

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY MOTIONS

 

Date:   September 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

         

          This is a wrongful death action. Plaintiff Egine Artinian sues for the death of her son, who died in an auto accident on the 210 freeway September 7, 2021. She alleges that David Artinian’s vehicle was involved in a collision with a truck negligently driven by Defendant Bashir Mahamud. Mahamud is alleged to have been driving in his capacity as an employee of Defendant SW Transport LLC, in a truck leased by Snider Leasing Corp.

          All three defendants filed answers. Mahamud and SW are represented by the same counsel. Snider has been dismissed.

          Before the Court are five discovery motions: two set for September 27, two for September 28, and one for September 29, 2023.  The September 28 and 29 hearing dates are advanced to today’s date. The motions seek orders compelling Mahamud to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and compelling SW to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One and Set Two.

          Counsel for Mahamud and SW filed oppositions to each of the motions. As for Mahamud, counsel avers that he has been unable to locate his client despite engaging the efforts of Hub Investigators. As for SW, counsel explains that its principal, someone named “Ranjit,” has not responded to counsel’s attempts to obtain his cooperation in responding to this discovery. The gist of the opposition briefs is that defense counsel is open to mediation and would like to settle the action. This does not relieve Defendants of their obligation to respond to discovery, however.

          Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. However, under the circumstances the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is not warranted.

          Defendant Mahamud is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 15 days of notice of this order.

          Defendant SW is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One and Set Two, within 15 days of notice of this order.

          Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.      

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT