Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV05029, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV05029    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

September 19, 2022

CASE NUMBER

19STCV05029

MOTIONS

Motions to Compel Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Interrogatories; Requests for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTY

Defendants Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. and Brian James Decker

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTIONS

 

            Defendants Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. and Brian James Decker (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel responses from plaintiff Katherine Walls to: (1) Supplemental  Request for Production of Documents, set one and (2) Supplemental Interrogatories, set one.  Defendants request monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

 

            The Court finds Defendants’ service of the motions on Plaintiff on August 25, 2022, by electronic transmission to be inadequate notice per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [16 court days + additional 2 court days].)  The Court therefore denies the motions without prejudice as procedurally defective.

 

            Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.