Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV32595, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32595    Hearing Date: April 4, 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

            Defendant Lindsay Celeste Cena (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Rosio Lus Mena (Plaintiff) to Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG).   Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

            Preliminarily, the Court finds Defendant’s motion to compel discovery to be procedurally defective on two grounds. 

            First, the Court notes that the SROG was served on Plaintiff in pro per, electronically.  (See Declarations of Marvin J. Strauss, ¶ 7.)  However, self-represented parties must affirmatively consent to electronic service by serving and filing a notice of consent. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).)  Absent such affirmative consent, self-represented parties must be served with documents by nonelectronic means. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (d)(4), 1011, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(2), (3).)  Here, Defendant fails to advance evidence that Plaintiff has affirmatively consented to electronic service. 

            Second, the Court notes that Defendant has failed to advance a copy of the subject discovery request (SROG) and the attendant proof of service.  Therefore, the Court is unable to determine whether the subject discovery request was served and in what manner. 

            Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the SROG as procedurally defective.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.