Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV43498, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43498    Hearing Date: April 19, 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

            Plaintiff Noe Navasardian (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Aram Borisovich Javadyan (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); and Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA). Defendant has not filed oppositions to the motions.

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that though Plaintiff has attached copies of Defendant’s unverified responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA, Plaintiff has failed to advance the subject discovery requests themselves, or their attendant proofs of service.  In order to prevail on a motion to compel discovery, the moving party must show a set of discovery was properly served on the opposing party.  (See Leach v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  Plaintiff has failed to establish here that the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA were properly served on Defendant. 

            Accordingly, the Court shall continue the hearing on the motions to May 3, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 to allow Plaintiff time to file with the Court evidence that the subject discovery was properly served on Defendant.

            Plaintiff shall file and serve a supplemental declaration on or before April 26, 2023 with the evidence attached establishing that Plaintiff properly served the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA on Defendant.

            Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.