Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV04534, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04534    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Mahrou Hanassab, 

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

21STCV04534

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

John K. Paulson, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: January 24, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendants John K. Paulson, Rachel E. Boden, Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar, LLP

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:   DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY IS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 31, 2023 AT 9:00AM.

 

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY ELECTRONICALLY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 27, 2023.

 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DECLARATION STATING WHETHER RESPONSES WERE SERVED NO LATER THAN JANUARY 30, 2023

 

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

 

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

 

            Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory no. 17.1 and for monetary and evidence sanctions. Defendants served the subject discovery on November 4, 2021. Defendants did not receive timely responses and filed motions to compel, which the Court granted on March 28, 2022. Thereafter, Plaintiff again failed to serve responses and Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on October 20, 2022. The day before the hearing, Plaintiff served responses to FIs, but did not respond to FI no. 17.1 specifically. The Court denied the motion but ordered Plaintiff to serve responses. Defendants say they informed Plaintiff’s counsel of FI no. 17.1’s absence but counsel did not respond. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.

 

            Plaintiff has twice been ordered to provide responses to discovery and has failed to provide complete responses. The Court will allow Plaintiff one final chance to respond to FI no. 17.1. The Court will continue the motion to January 31, 2023 and order Plaintiff to serve a response to FI no. 17.1 no later than January 27, 2023 by electronic service. If Plaintiff again fails to comply, the Court will grant the motion for evidence sanction prohibiting Plaintiff from introducing any testimony and/or documents that would support her denials to Requests for Admission, Set One. Defendant is ordered to file a declaration no later than January 30, 2023 informing the Court whether a response has been received.