Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV13450, Date: 2023-03-24 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: 19STCV13450    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Ivan Mendoza

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Orange Trim, Inc.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, General

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Ivan Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order compelling defendant Orange Trim, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, General, numbers 3.7, subdivision (c), and 15.1. 

Defendant has submitted the declaration of Haewon Kim in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, asserting that Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, General, on March 8, 2023.  (Kim Decl., ¶ 3; Kim Decl., Ex. A.)  The court exercises its discretion to consider the supplemental responses in ruling on this motion.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Form Interrogatory number 3.7 because Defendant’s supplemental answer to that interrogatory is not evasive or incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further response to Form Interrogatory number 15.1 because Defendant’s supplemental answer to that interrogatory is evasive and incomplete since (1) Defendant does not identify each denial of a material allegation and provide the information requested by subparts (a), (b), and (c) as to each denial of a material allegation, and (2) Defendant’s responses to subpart (c) as to each affirmative defense are evasive because they do not identify the documents with specificity and do not state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, the court orders defendant Orange Trim, Inc. to serve a further, full and complete answer to plaintiff Ivan Mendoza’s Form Interrogatories, General, number 15.1, which complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210-2030.220, and 2030.250, within 20 days of the date of this order.

The court denies plaintiff Ivan Mendoza’s request for sanctions, made in his memorandum of points and authorities, because the notice of motion did not identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought or specify the type of sanction sought, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.

The court orders plaintiff Ivan Mendoza to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 24, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court