Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV00634, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV00634    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Verax Restaurant Group, Inc.      

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Michael Dekhtyar

Motion to Compel Further Answers to Special Interrogatories

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Verax Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Michael Dekhtyar (“Plaintiff”) to provide further answers to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1-5, 7, 15-20, and 22-28, and (2) issuing sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $4,460.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement “that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subds. (a)(2), (c).)  Here, Defendant has not filed a separate statement in support of its motion as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.  The court notes that, although the caption of Defendant’s motion states that a separate statement has been “filed concurrently” with the moving papers, no separate statement has been filed in support of the motion.   

The court therefore finds that Defendant has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 and denies Defendant’s motion.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to compel that did not comply with rule requiring separate statement].)

ORDER

The court denies defendant Verax Restaurant Group, Inc.’s motion to compel further answers to special interrogatories.

The court denies both Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions on this motion. 

The court orders plaintiff Michael Dekhtyar to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 13, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court