Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV28953, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28953    Hearing Date: October 20, 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

MOTIONS

            Defendant Dr. Renu Jivrajka (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Robert F. Ketcher (Robert) to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, set two (RPD); as well as responses from Plaintiff Lee Ann Ketcher (Lee Ann) to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, set two (RPD). Robert and Lee Ann have not filed oppositions to the motions.

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant failed to attach a copy of a proof of service reflecting proper service of the RPD on Lee Ann, to the motion to compel regarding the RPD purportedly served on Lee Ann. Therefore, the Court finds that the motion to compel Lee Ann’s responses to the RPD to be procedurally defective.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Defendant served the RPD on Robert on February 7, 2022, electronically. Robert’s responses were thus due by March 11, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses to the RPD from Robert.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Robert has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Robert’s responses to the RPD per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, and orders Robert to serve verified responses to the RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.   

Further, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel Lee Ann’s responses to the RPD as procedurally defective.   

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.