Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26406, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26406    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Court will hear from counsel.

Background

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff Dora Lidia Cazarez-Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants, Inc., Universal Studios Hollywood, and Does 1 through 50, alleging that she sustained injuries on August 7, 2021, on premises owned, operated, controlled, managed, or maintained by Defendants.  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.

On September 16, 2022, Defendants Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Restaurants, Inc. (“Bubba Gump”) and Universal Studios LLC dba Universal Citywalk Hollywood (erroneously sued as Universal Studios Hollywood) (“Universal”) filed their answer.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed four motions to compel: (1) motion to compel Universal to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); (2) motion to compel Universal to provide further responses to Requests for Production (Set One); (3) motion to compel Bubba Gump to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (4) motion to compel Bubba Gump to provide further responses to Requests for Production (Set One).  Oppositions and replies were filed.

On August 15 and 16, the motions came on for hearing.  The Court continued the hearings on all four motions, as the parties had not participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courtrooms (the “Standing Order”), at page 7.  The new hearing date for all four motions was December 15, 2023.  The Court then, on its own motion, continued the hearings to January 25, 2024.

It is now more than five months since the Court continued the hearings and directed the parties to comply with the Standing Order.  Still, no IDC has been conducted, or even scheduled.  It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the motions (and, if so, why Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s orders).