Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV49497, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49497    Hearing Date: May 18, 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

Defendants David Carranza, Jasmin Carranza, Jose Ramon Mandujano (collectively, Defendants) move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Martin Mercado (Plaintiff).  Further, Defendants move to compel responses from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); and Demand for Production, set one (RPD).  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendants failed to attach a copy of the attendant proof of service for the FROG to the motion to compel.  Therefore, the Court finds the motion to compel the FROG to be procedurally defective.

ANALYSIS

1.      Deposition

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on September 27, 2022, Defendants served the subject deposition notice for Plaintiff, on Plaintiff, noticing the deposition for October 11, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff did not appear for deposition.  As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition.

2.      Written Discovery

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, Defendants served the SROG and RPD on Plaintiff on February 16, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by March 22, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SROG and RPD.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order, unless Defendants stipulate otherwise. 

Further, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the SROG and RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Finally, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the FROG as procedurally defective.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.