Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STLC01469, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01469    Hearing Date: November 22, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 22, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Cross-Complainant Christopher Ball

Responding Party: Cross-Defendant Cross River Bank

T/R:      CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS DENIED AS MOOT.

CROSS-COMPLAINANT 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.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Cross-Complainant moves to compel further responses to FIs, set one, from Cross-Defendant Cross River Bank. In opposition, Cross-Defendant represents that supplemental responses were served on October 24, 2024. In reply, Cross-Complainant asserts that the responses remain deficient.

As Cross-Defendant has served supplemental responses, the motion is moot. The parties must meet and confer on the latest responses before further response can be compelled.

The motion to compel further is DENIED as MOOT.