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

 

KRISTEN OSEGUEDA,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

ONTRAC, et al.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 20STCV41192

 

[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