Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV06761, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06761    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 13, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant Laurence Kim

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Ines Aquino, Emily Morales, and Michelle Morales

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE DENIED.

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.

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).) “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).)

Defendant moves compel responses to FIs and RPDs, set one, from Plaintiffs. Defendant served the discovery on June 4, 2024. Responses were due on July 10, 2024. Plaintiffs requested an extension to respond to July 22, 2024, which Defendant granted. Plaintiffs then requested an additional extension, which Defendant denied. In opposition, Plaintiffs represent that responses were served on July 22, 2024 by email, and verification followed on July 31, 2024.

As responses have been served, the motions are DENIED as moot. The Court notes that Defendant, who is not represented by an attorney, cannot recover attorney’s fees sanctions.