Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV41192, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV41192 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff(s),
vs. ONTRAC, et al., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL Dept. 31 8:30 a.m. March 13, 2023 |
Plaintiff Kristen Osegueda
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Ontrac, California
Overnight, Inc., Express Messenger Systems, Inc., and Felix Ortega Dominguez
(“Dominguez”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle and bicycle accident.
Plaintiff has filed an amendment to complaint naming Zion Delivery Service,
Inc. (“Zion”) as Doe 1.
As relevant to this proceeding, on
May 5, 2022, defense counsel for Zion filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint
on behalf of Dominguez.
At this time, Plaintiff moves to
compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request
for production of documents, all set one, against Dominguez. Plaintiff propounded the discovery on
Dominguez, through defense counsel, on May 23, 2022, but Dominguez has not
served responses to the discovery. Plaintiff,
thus, seeks an order compelling Dominguez to respond, without objections, to
the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.
Defense counsel for Zion filed a
declaration in opposition to the instant motions. Defense counsel represents that it mistakenly
filed an answer on Dominguez’s behalf, and that defense counsel would seek to
withdraw the answer. Based on defense
counsel’s declaration, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motions until
after it could determine whether Dominguez’s answer should be stricken. The Court noted the following in its February
8, 2023 Order: “If the answer filed on
behalf of Dominguez is ordered stricken because defense counsel did not have
authority to file it, this would mean that the discovery propounded on defense
counsel would not be effective to compel a response against Dominguez.”
On February 16, 2023, the Court ordered
the answer filed by defense counsel on behalf of Dominguez stricken. Pursuant to the Court’s February 8, 2023
Order, the discovery propounded on defense counsel is not effective to compel a
response against Dominguez. (See Code of
Civ. Proc. § 2030.080 [“The party propounding interrogatories shall serve a
copy of them on the party to whom the interrogatories are directed.”]; Code of
Civ. Proc. § 2031.040 [“The party making a demand for inspection…shall serve a
copy of the demand on the party to whom it is directed.”]) As the Court noted
in its February 16, 2023 Order, Plaintiff should re-serve the discovery on
Dominguez, as counsel did not have authority to represent Dominguez or accept
the discovery on Dominguez’s behalf. As
of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a renewed motion or any proof that
discovery has been properly propounded on Dominguez.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to
compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request
for production of documents, all set one, against Dominguez are denied. Plaintiff remains free to re-serve the
discovery on Dominguez.
Plaintiff is ordered to give
notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 13th
day of March, 2023
|
|
|
Hon. Audra
Mori Judge
of the Superior Court |