Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV12426, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV12426, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12426 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: 29

Tentative

Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff Kim to respond to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Form Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production (Set Two), and Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two), are all DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff Ko to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), and Requests for Production (Set Two), and Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two), are all DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged vehicle accident on April 21, 2021, near the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Argyle Avenue in Los Angeles, California. On April 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Suk Jong Kim and Yun Kyung Ko (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Phillip Benjamin Dunn (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On March 8, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.

On July 19, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiffs’ counsel to be relieved. Plaintiffs are now representing themselves.

On August 4, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff Kim with Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Production (Set Two), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. A.) Defendant also served Plaintiff Ko with Form Interrogatories (Set Two), Requests for Production (Set Two), and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 6 & Exhs. A.) Service of the discovery requests was by mail. (Petrosyan Decls., Exhs. A.) (The proofs of service also list a single email address for both plaintiffs, but there is nothing before the Court that verifies or confirms that either or both Plaintiffs agreed to accept service by email at that address.)

Plaintiffs did not respond to any of the discovery requests. (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 8.)

On September 26 and October 23, 2023, Defendant filed the four discovery motions against Plaintiff Kim that were initially on calendar for January 3, 2024. On September 26, 2023, Defendant filed the three discovery motions against Plaintiff Ko that were initially on calendar for January 8, 2024. According to the proofs of service, all seven motions were served by email only (in contrast to the discovery requests, which were served by both mail and email).

No oppositions have been filed.

On January 3, Plaintiffs appeared, as well as counsel for Defendant. Plaintiffs represented that they had recently retained new counsel. Based on that representation, the Court continued the hearings on the four motions on calendar for January 3 to January 23. The Court also advanced and continued the hearings on three additional motions on calendar for January 8 to January 23.

Discussion

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that there is no adequate proof of service of these motions on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not represented parties and so are not subject to any mandatory provision for accepting electronic service that applies to represented parties. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251.) Nor is there any evidence in the record that Plaintiffs agreed to or consented to electronic service of court documents in this matter.

Accordingly, in the absence of proper service, the motions are DENIED without prejudice.

The Court expresses no views on the merits of the motions.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.