Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20STCV16594, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16594    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: R

This is similar to the motion heard on February 2, 2023.  And the ruling is the same.  Anticipating as much, defendant has supplemented its responses.  Plaintiff in reply asserts that the response is not sufficient.  The court nonetheless deems the motion MOOT.  As the court reads the response, it assumes that what defendant means is that it will either provide the information or, if it was already provided, defendant will point to the specific interrogatory response or page of document production that contains that information.  Doing so is sufficient.  If that is not what defendant means, then the parties ought to meet and confer about it, but defendant likely understands where the court is going on this.  (The court has received, but not read, the merits opposition.)

For the same reason that sanctions were denied as to the February 2, 2023 motion, they are denied now.  Defendant has not increased expenses since that hearing and thus there is no argument that even if there might have been substantial justification at that time, it did not exist thereafter.

Given the above ruling, the ex parte application is MOOT.