Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 21NWCV00551 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00551, Date: 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 21NWCV00551 Hearing Date: December 29, 2022 Dept: SEC

SWARTZBAUGH v. LONDON ENTERPRISES, INC.

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00551

HEARING: 12/29/22

JUDGE: LEE W. TSAO

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

II. Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

III. Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Oppositions filed as of December 27, 2022. Due by December 15, 2022. (CCP §1005(b).)

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that Special Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories (set one), and Request for Production of Documents (set one) were properly served onto Plaintiff PEGGY SWARTZBAUGH on April 1, 2022. The deadlines to respond have expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Defendant filed these motions on September 26, 2022— over five months after service of the discovery. As of December 27, 2022, no Oppositions have been filed to the subject Motions.

Therefore, the Motions to Compel are GRANTED, and Plaintiff PEGGY SWARTZBAUGH is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents, without objection by no later than 30 days from date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Sanctions may be awarded against a party who fails to oppose a motion to compel. (C.R.C 3.1348(a).). Plaintiff failed to submit Oppositions to the instant Motions. As such, there is nothing to show that they acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED. Plaintiff PEGGY SWARTZBAUGH and her counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant and its counsel of record, sanctions in the amount of $705.00 ($235 per Motion) by no later than 90 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.