Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV02137, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02137    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    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

            Defendant RP Automotive II, Inc. dba Penske Cadillac Buick GMC Southbay (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Edward Bullock (Plaintiff) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); and (3) Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Further, Defendant moves to compel the appearance of Plaintiff for deposition.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

1. Discovery Responses

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, Defendant served the FROG, SROG, and RPD on Plaintiff on June 16, 2022, by mail.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by July 21, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received verified responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely verified responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD.

1. Deposition

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on August 12, 2022, Defendant served the subject deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for September 20, 2022.  On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff failed to appear.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, 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 FROG, SROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

The Court grants Defendant’s 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 Defendant stipulates otherwise.

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