Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV28953, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28953    Hearing Date: October 21, 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 Form Interrogatories, set two (FROG); as well as responses from Plaintiff Lee Ann Ketcher (Lee Ann) to Form Interrogatories, set two (FROG). Robert and Lee Ann have not filed oppositions.

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant has failed to attach a proof of service to the motion to compel Robert’s responses to the FROG reflecting proper service of the instant motion on Robert.  Thus, the Court denies the motion to compel Robert’s responses to the FROG as procedurally defective.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Lee Ann’s responses to the FROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, and orders Lee Ann to serve verified responses to the FROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

            Further, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel Robert’s responses to the FROG as procedurally defective. 

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