Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV28754, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28754    Hearing Date: May 9, 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 Tatyana Ivanova (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Chen Family Trust (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG).  Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendant has not filed an opposition. 

            Preliminarily the Court notes Plaintiff has failed to specify in the substantive portion of her notice of motion who she is requesting monetary sanctions against.  As such, the Court finds Plaintiff has not given proper notice of her request for monetary sanctions and denies her request 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, Plaintiff served the FROG on June 30, 2022, via mail.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by August 4, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff had not received verified responses from Defendant to the FROG.  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the FROG without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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