Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV21259, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21259    Hearing Date: May 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

Plaintiff Christopher M. Carafino (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Raymond Yniguez (Defendant) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant moves for a protective order to excuse Defendant from having to respond to the three sets of Requests for Admissions (RFAs), which Plaintiff served on Defendant on October 4, 2022.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendant has failed to advance a declaration establishing that Defendant has made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues presented in the motion for protective order as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.080, subdivision (a) which states:  “When requests for admission have been made, the responding party may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” 

Instead, Defendant advances the declaration of his attorney, Larry T. Valdez (Counsel), who avers that his previous communications with Plaintiff have only proven to be antagonistic and unproductive.  (Declaration of Larry T. Valdez, ¶¶ 6-8.)  Thus, Counsel concluded any attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff on the issues presented in the instant motion for protective order would be moot.  (Declaration of Larry T. Valdez, ¶ 11.) 

However, based on Counsel’s conclusion that he did not need to even attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the instant motion, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.080, and thus denies Defendant’s motion for protective order as procedurally defective. 

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