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.