Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV25564, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25564    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

DANIEL ROMERO GARCIA, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CHRISTOPHER BLAKNEY, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV25564 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY 

 

   

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 29, 2024 

 

I. Motion to Compel 

On October 9, 2023, defendant Christopher Blakney (“Defendant”) propounded supplemental interrogatories, set one, on plaintiff Daniel Romero Garcia (“Plaintiff”). (Mot. Exh. A.) After receiving no responses, defense counsel sent correspondence on November 15, 2023 to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses, without objection, by December 7, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant therefore moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

As of February 15, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party.  (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production twice before the initial trial date, and subject to the time limits of discovery proceedings. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (b), 2031.050, subd. (b).)  

Because the evidence shows Plaintiff was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant’s supplemental interrogatory, set one, within fifteen (15) days.  

 

II. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)¿ Plaintiff did not file any opposition. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition was filed, pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a).  Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $455.34. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $455.34, within fifteen (15) days. 

 

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 28th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court