Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00718, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00718 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00718 Coral Langarica, et al v. Ardeshir Nejati, Lyft,
Inc.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S THREE [3] MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF CORAL
LANGARICA’S RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S THREE [3] MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JOCELYN
RAMON’S RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS; AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S THREE [3] MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SAMANTHA
OCHOA’S RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS, AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
This
action arises from a two-vehicle accident. Defendant, Ardeshir Nejati, served
initial written discovery on Plaintiffs, Coral Langarica, Jocelyn Ramon, and
Samantha Ochoa (“Plaintiffs”) on November 3, 2023. Defendant moves to compel
initial written discovery from all three Plaintiffs, who did not file an
opposition.
The
three motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to requests for admission are
DENIED. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the remedy is
a motion for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of
any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)
The
motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories,
and request for production of documents are GRANTED. Where a party fails to
timely respond to interrogatories and a document request, the court has
authority to compel a response. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.290(b), §2031.300(b)).
Untimely responses result in a waiver of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290(a), § 2031.300(a).)
Defense
counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel by letter on
three occasions. Plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses. (Christopher
Sirkis decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Imposition of
sanctions are warranted as Plaintiffs have not shown substantial justification
for failing to respond to discovery requests. The Court finds that defense
counsel’s $160 per hour rate is reasonable. The Court permits one hour to
prepare each of three motions for each Plaintiff as follows:
|
Samantha
Ochoa (3 motions x $160) |
$ 480.00 |
|
Coral
Langarica |
$480.00 |
|
Jocelyn
Ramon |
$480.00 |
Plaintiffs
are ordered to provide verified responses without objection to the form and
special interrogatories and request for production of documents within 10 days.
The court imposes sanctions of $480 (total) against Samantha Ochoa and her
counsel, jointly and severally; $480 against Coral Langarica and her counsel,
jointly and severally; and $480 against Jocelyn Ramon and her counsel, jointly
and severally.
Sanctions
shall be paid to defense counsel within 10 days.