Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "TCFG Investment Advisors, LLC v. Laverty", Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff TCFG Investment Advisors, LLC’s Motions to Compel Responses to Post-judgment Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff TCFG Investment Advisors, LLC (TCFG) moves to compel defendant Charles Acheson Laverty to provide responses to TCFG’s post-judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  For the following reasons, TCFG’s motions are denied. 

TCFG’s motions do not contain proofs of service showing service on Laverty of either (i) the special interrogatories and requests for production or (ii) the motions to compel.  TCFG’s counsel states in her declaration she personally served Laverty with the special interrogatories on November 4, 2021, but the proof of service attached to the special interrogatories does not reflect that service.  TCFG’s counsel states in her declaration she personally served Laverty with the requests for production on November 4, 2021, but there is no proof of service attached to the requests for production.

TCFG also has not filed proofs of service showing service of the motions on Laverty.  See Civ. Proc. Code § 1005(b).  California Rule of Court 3.1300 (c) states that “[p]roof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”  The proofs of service (ROA Nos. 94, 96) do not identify any person as having been served with the motions or any locations at which any person purportedly was served with the motions.  See ROA No. 94, Item No. 5; ROA No. 96, Item No. 5.

TCFG’s requests for sanctions are denied.

TCFG to give notice.