Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01186, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01186, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01186 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: November 15, 2023

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01186

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Elsy Rojas, Marlin Marroquin v. Rebecca Lynn Lachance, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Rebecca Lynn LaChance

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Both Plaintiffs, but no opposition filed

TRIAL DATE: None Set.

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Marlin Marroquin, to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Marlin Marroquin, to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(3)Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Elsy Rojas, to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(4) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Elsy Rojas, to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Tentative Rulings: (1), (2), (3), and (4) Continue to August 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., Inglewood Dept. 8. That would be three weeks after the hearing on the motion to be relieved as plaintiffs’ counsel.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff, Elsy Rojas and Marlin Marroquin (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Rebecca Lynn Lachance (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence, concerning a motor vehicle collision on Sepurlveda Boulevard on November 24, 2020.

On January 12, 2023, Defendant notes that it propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. Defendants note that Plaintiff’s verified responses were due on or before February 14, 2023. Defendant notes that on March 9, 2023, having not received any discovery responses nor a request for an extension of time to respond, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, Kelly Lawrence Casado, Esq., requesting verified responses without objection to the outstanding discovery by March 23, 2023. Defendant also noted that a second meet and confer correspondence was sent on April 6, 2023.

As such, Defendant has filed these Motions to Compel.

B. Procedural¿¿

On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed her Motions to Compel. To date, no opposition has been filed. On June 6, 2023 Plaintiffs’ counsel Kelly Casado filed a motion to be relieved as their attorney.

II. ANALYSIS¿¿

A. Motion to Compel Responses

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)¿ ¿

Further, “A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Lastly, “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”¿ (CCP § 2033.010.)¿ “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .”¿ (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

Here, based on the court file, there is some confusion about how many motions are pending. On the Court’s end, there are six (6) motions to be heard on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, four of which are against Plaintiff Marlin Marroquin, and two of which are against Elsy Marroquin. On Friday afternoon, the Court attempted to get into contact with counsel for Defendant to discuss what appear to be the duplicate filings, and to discuss the impact of the pending motion by counsel for both Plaintiffs to withdraw from the representation. However, the Court’s staff was unsuccessful in raising anyone at the defense firm and has not received a response as of the time this Tentative Ruling is being posted. Given the lack of any responses to the pending discovery and the pending motion to be relieved as counsel, the Court’s tentative ruling is to CONTINUE the hearings until August 1, 2023 on what appear to be four unique motions but with an indication that all four motions would be granted if Plaintiffs fail to provide verified, Code-compliant responses before the continued hearing.

Defendants to give notice.