Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV19606, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV19606    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Christopher Nieves (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on June 5, 2019 against Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) alleging that a driver of one of Defendant’s metro buses negligently caused an April, 2018 car accident involving Plaintiff. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed 1) a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, 182, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, and 198 and 2) a motion to compel further responses to request for admissions, set one, no. 4. Defendant filed an opposition to each motion on February 24, 2023. Plaintiff filed a reply to each motion on March 6, 2023.

An IDC was held on January 12, 2023 to resolve outstanding discovery issues between the parties. At the IDC, the Court deemed the issues “resolved" and ordered Defendant to do a diligent search and inquiry as required as to any communication between the driver and supervisor regarding the collision, provide all non privilege documents regarding the collision, and do a privilege log for any privileged materials.

Plaintiff claims that his requests for further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set one, were not addressed at the January 12 IDC and therefore not resolved, although this contradicts the Minute Order issued after the IDC. 

Defendant in opposition argues that Plaintiff agreed at the January 12 IDC that the issues regarding further responses to special interrogatories and requests for admission were resolved based on Defendant’s agreement to further responses on other discovery. Defendant argues, therefore, that if the Court were to consider these motions it would render the resolution reached at the January 12 IDC meaningless. 

The Eighth Amended Standing Order provides, “PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery unless the parties have participated in an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a motion to compel further discovery responses.”  The Court is not satisfied that there was a sufficient IDC on the issues of Plaintiff’s requests for further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and requests for admissions, set one, for Plaintiff to have filed the instant motions. Using the Court Reservation System, Moving party Plaintiff must continue the hearing date on the motions and schedule an IDC for at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date on the motions.  Otherwise, the motions may be taken off calendar. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 13^th day of March 2023