Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00435, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00435    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    April 2, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      23TRCV00435

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Jonathan Gonzalez; Kenyard Bilal v. Timreuka Trass, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Plaintiffs, Jonathan Gonzalez and Kenyard Bilal

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Defendant/Cross-Complainants, Timreuka Trass and Ascot Limousine Service, Inc.  

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       December 9, 2024

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Timreuka Trass’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Timreuka Trass’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Timreuka Trass’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

                                                (4) Requests for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) – (4) Continue to May 9 at 11 a.m., when the IDC was continued to as well

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff, Jonathan Gonzalez and Kenyard Bilal (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Timreuka Trass, Ascot Limousine Services, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Plaintiff’s moving papers assert that on September 15, 2023, he propounded Set One of Discovery onto Defendant Trass, which included: Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission. Plaintiff Gonzalez contends that on December 28, 2023, Trass served objections for each and every discovery request, without providing any substantive responses.

In a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve this matter informally, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Trass on January 18, 2024, advising counsel of the deficient discovery responses. Nonetheless, Trass did not respond. Plaintiff Gonzalez asserts that during the meet and confer process, counsel for Trass informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they were unable to contact and locate Trass to get substantive verified responses. Plaintiff Gonzalez notes that Trass has not provided verified, substantive responses as of this writing. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel respectfully asks the Court to grant this motion to compel Trass to provide further responses.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff Gonzalez filed these motions to compel Defendant Trass’s further responses. On March 22, 2024, Defendant Trass filed opposition briefs. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff Gonzalez filed reply briefs.  

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court is inclined to continue the hearing on these discovery motions until the date the Court to which needed to postpone the IDC.  While the Court strongly supports the use of IDCs and makes itself available every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 11 a.m. for IDCs on days it is not in trial, the Court is currently in the midst of its third back-to-back-to back trial, so the March 28 IDC needed to be postponed.  The bottom line is that defense counsel cannot locate individual defendant Trass to get his input to help answer the discovery or to even get a signed verification, which if the situation continues would make an order compelling Trass to provide verified responses a mostly futile exercise.    The hearing on these motions is thus continued to the new IDC date, May 9, during which time defense counsel will need to exhaust efforts to locate Mr. Trass and come prepared to attend the IDC with a game plan for defending the case in the even he remains AWOL.