Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV16045, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16045    Hearing Date: January 20, 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

MOTION

            Defendant Dr. Laser Medspa, PC (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Charlsey Morgan (Plaintiff) to Request for Production of Documents and Things, set one (RPD).  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

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 Plaintiff on August 22, 2022, electronically and by mail.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by September 26, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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