Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV04244, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04244    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

IRENE BADILLO, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

KEVIN SQUIRE, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV04244 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER   

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 23, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Irene Badillo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Kevin Squire (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.  

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to request for admissions (RFAs), set one, in addition to monetary sanctions.  

Any opposition was due on or before February 8, 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. Procedural Requirements 

  1. Meet and Confer 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).  

 

  1. Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) 

Per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” Additionally, “Reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” (Ibid.) 

Here, the Court finds Defendant complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC. The issues were resolved at the September 12, 2023 IDC, and Defendant’s motions to compel further discovery were taken off calendar.  

 

  1. Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Defendant properly filed separate statements for his motion to compel further. 

 

III. Motion to Compel Further Responses 

CCP § 2033.290 (a) provides that on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: 

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. 

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. 

 

At the IDC, the Court had already reviewed the discovery at issue. Based upon the Court’s recollection of the matter, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide verified responses, without objections, within 45 days. It appears that Plaintiff has failed to do so, and the Court interprets Plaintiff’s lack of opposition as a concession. Defendant’s RFAs, set one, contains only one request. 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RFAs, set one, is GRANTED.¿Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to the request, without objection, within fifteen (15) days. 

 

IV. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.  (CCP §2031.310(h).) 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 $961.65 for the motion. Sanctions imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $961.65, within twenty (20) 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 22nd day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court