Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV44670, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44670    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Paul Dawson, in pro per, (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 6, 2021 against Defendant Hooman Nissani (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff indicates that on January 28, 2022 he served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant. (Dawson Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff received boilerplate responses from Defendant and sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant on March 1, 2022. (Dawson Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to comply with meet and confer requirements. (Dawson Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant opposes.   

The motion by Plaintiff will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON JULY 28, 2022.

As Defendant notes, on June 16, 2022, the Court issued an Order on Plaintiff’s previous Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – Set 1, filed by Plaintiff on March 22, 2022. The Court’s June 16, 2022 Order provides, “Plaintiff and lead or other designated counsel for Defendant with full authority are ordered to participate in person in an IDC pursuant to the Court’s power under Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) and Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.” The parties have not since participated in an IDC, nor has Plaintiff made any reservation for an IDC. 

As noted in the Court’s June 16, 2022 Order, after consulting with Defendant’s counsel regarding available dates, Plaintiff must make a prompt reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Plaintiff must file Dept. 50’s one-page IDC form in the department seven days prior to the IDC, and the responding party may file the same form in the department setting forth a response three days prior to the IDC.

Once Plaintiff has confirmed an IDC date, Plaintiff must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue this motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date. The parties are ordered to have with them whatever materials are needed to make the IDC session productive and successful. Prior to the IDC date, Plaintiff and lead or other designated counsel for Defendant, with full authority, are to meet and confer, in person or via telephone in a further attempt to resolve as many of the issues as possible before the IDC. (See CRC Rule 3.670(f)(2).)  If the parties resolve their discovery disputes before the IDC date, Plaintiff is ordered to take both the IDC and the motion off calendar as soon as possible.

In its opposition to the motion, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050, as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s June 16, 2022 Order. Plaintiff also appears to request sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00. (Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Opposition, p. 2:9.) 

The Court notes that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The caption page of and notice of Defendant’s opposition does not reference any request for sanctions. Plaintiff’s notice of motion likewise does not reference any request for sanctions. Thus, the Court declines to award sanctions against either party.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED:  July 28, 2022                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court