Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV33415, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33415    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    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

            Plaintiff Andrea Gardner (Gardner) moves to compel responses from Defendant Amon Leon Maiden (Defendant) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) and (2) Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Further, Plaintiff Udell Moon (Moon) also moves to compel responses from Defendant to the FROG and RPD.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

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).)  

            Similarly, under 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, Gardner and Moon served the FROGs and RPDs on Defendant on February 22, 2022, by mail.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by March 29, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, neither Gardner nor Moon have received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the FROGs and RPDs.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Gardner and Moon’s motions to compel responses to the FROGs and RPDs per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the FROGs and RPDs, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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