Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2021-00013887-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00013887-CU-PA-CTL BOYAJIAN VS KHALIQ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 05/08/2023

Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to [Special Interrogatories], Set Two (ROA 66) is DENIED.

As to Special Interrogatory Nos. 15-16, 20, 22-24, 28, 30-31, 34, 36, and 38, the motion is denied as moot in light of the fact that Plaintiff has now served further responses to these interrogatories.

As to Special Interrogatory Nos. 39-40, the motion is denied. Defendant asks Plaintiff whether he will 'finish filling out and signing the standard form 180(4)' and if not, all of the reasons why not. Plaintiff has objected to No. 39 on the grounds of speculation. Plaintiff responds that he has offered to sign an authorization subject to certain limitations. Defendant has not agreed to those limitations, nor has it demonstrated, or even attempted to demonstrate, that any limitation proposed by Plaintiff is inappropriate. The court believes that Plaintiff's response is sufficient. Because no further response is needed to No. 39, Plaintiff's response that No. 40 is not applicable is proper.

As to Special Interrogatory Nos. 41-42 (42 was incorrectly labeled 41), the motion is denied. The interrogatories have been answered. Defendant is essentially challenging the truth of the answer, which is not a proper subject of a motion to compel.

As to Special Interrogatory No. 43 (incorrectly labeled 42), the motion is denied. The interrogatory seeks the last known address for Plaintiff's Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO). Plaintiff responded he does not have that information. This is a complete response, and Defendant has not demonstrated that more is required.

Defendant's and Plaintiff's requests for sanctions are both denied. Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff acted without substantial justification during a meet and confer process that the Court now believes has resulted in sufficient responses. Plaintiff likewise has not shown that Defendant pursued this matter unreasonably. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (ROA 61) is DENIED. (ROA 61.) The motion is denied as moot, except as to the issue of sanctions, in light of the fact that Plaintiff has now served further responses to the requests for production.

Defendant's and Plaintiff's requests for sanctions are both denied. Again, Defendant has not Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042073  1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BOYAJIAN VS KHALIQ [IMAGED]  37-2021-00013887-CU-PA-CTL demonstrated that Plaintiff acted without substantial justification during a meet and confer process that the Court now believes has resulted in sufficient responses, and Plaintiff likewise has not shown that Defendant pursued this matter unreasonably. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042073  1