Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC04479, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.
The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org
The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.
**Please note we no longer use CourtCall**
Case Number: 21STLC04479 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: 26
Soto v. Robinson, et al.
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2030.290)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Ema Aracely Romero
Soto’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Ema Aracely Romero Soto
(“Plaintiff”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Mark
Anthony Robinson (“Defendant”) on May 5, 2022. (Motion, Soong Decl., Exh. A.)
Following Defendant’s failure to respond, Plaintiff sought to meet and confer.
(Id. at Exh. B.) Following no response from Defendant after the extended
deadline, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions on January 25, 2023. To
date, no opposition has been filed.
The Court finds that the discovery requests served on
Defendant do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 94, which limits
the number of written discovery requests to 35 in the limited jurisdiction
court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has served more than 35
requests on Plaintiff. (Motion, Soong Decl.,
Exh. A.) Additionally, the Court notes that the form interrogatories include
subparts, which also violates Code of Civil Procedure section 94, subdivision
(a)(1). (Ibid.) Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council
for the Limited Jurisdiction Court are set forth at Judicial Council Form
DISC-004.
Based on the foregoing, the discovery motion is denied. The
Court will not grant motions to compel discovery propounded in violation of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Ema Aracely Romero
Soto’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Court clerk to give notice.
