Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC703002, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC703002    Hearing Date: August 1, 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. 

NOTE:  2 TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

MOTIONS

            Defendant REA-2003-1, LLC moves to compel responses from plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez Felix to: (1) Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, set two (“RPD”) and (2) Special Interrogatories, set two (“SROG”). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

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).)  

            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 subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on March 1, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by April 1, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD and SROG.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the subject discovery requests to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); and 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Ross & Ross Law, APC., in the amount of $795, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions attend the hearing at $225 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300 and 2030.290, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Ross & Ross Law, APC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $795 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, 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.

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 - NO. 2

MOTION

Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez Felix sued defendants/cross-complainants REA-2003-1, LLC and Universal Studios, LLC dba Universal CityWalk Hollywood (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained in a physical altercation with defendant Anthony Michael Carter on property owned and controlled by Defendants.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for September 28, 2022, for at least 90 days, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

Here, Defendants seek a trial continuance to permit Defendants time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Defendant, Meena C. Nachiappan (“Nachiappan”), Plaintiff has failed to respond to certain written discovery propounded by Defendants, which has necessitated Defendants’ filing of a number of motions to compel responses from Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶¶ 4-6.)  Nachiappan states that Defendants have therefore been unable to obtain essential information, including the facts, witnesses, and documents that Plaintiff contends support his theory of liability against Defendants.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 5.)  Nachiappan states that, upon receipt of Plaintiff’s discovery responses, Defendants will be required to subpoena additional medical and insurance records and notice the depositions of witnesses identified in the responses, as well as subpoena documents related to Plaintiff’s subsequent workplace injury and care accident. (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 7.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for September 28, 2022, is continued to December 29, 2022 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for September 14, 2022, is continued to December 15, 2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

   

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the trial date of December 29, 2022.

• The parties are ordered to meet and confer in a meaningful manner to resolve informally all of the current discovery disputes which may obviate the need for the numerous discovery motions scheduled on September 19, 2022.

• No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause.

   

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