Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV17624, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV17624 Hearing Date: September 26, 2023 Dept: 54
|
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles |
|||
|
Darveonnah Miller, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.: |
22STCV17624 |
|
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling |
|
|
LACMTA, et al., |
Defendant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: September 26, 2023
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
(3) Motions to Compel Responses to
Discovery
Moving Party: Defendant LACMTA
Responding Party: Plaintiff Darveonnah Miller
T/R: DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES
TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF
RULING.
DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE
DENIED.
DEFENDANT 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,
opposition, and reply.
“If a party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely
response to it. . . [t]he party to whom
the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any
objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection
for work product. . . . The party making
the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).) 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).)
Defendant LACMTA moves to compel from
Plaintiff responses to FIs – General, FIs – Employment, and RPDs. Defendant
served the subject discovery on March 22, 2023. After multiple extensions,
responses were due on June 8, 2023. As of the date of these motions, Defendant
has not received responses. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that responses
will be served before the motion is heard and requests that the Court deny
Defendant’s request for sanctions.
As Plaintiff has not yet responded to
discovery, the motions are GRANTED. As Plaintiff represents responses are
forthcoming, the requests for sanctions are DENIED.