Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV13547, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13547    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 6, 2023       TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         17^th Street Complex, LLC et al. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV13547           

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FROM 17th STREET LLC TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FROM 17th STREET LLC TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION;

(3)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FROM 17th STREET COMPLEX LLC TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;

(4)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FROM 17th STREET COMPLEX LLC TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY:               (1)-(4) Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Co.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)-(4) Plaintiffs 17th Street Complex, LLC and 17th Street, LLC

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract filed on April 25, 2022.  In their First Amended Complaint, filed on December 9, 2022, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Company failed to pay all insurance benefits owed on a claim pursuant to an insurance policy.  Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint on December 22, 2022.

Defendant Ohio Security Insurance Co. moves to compel responses to special interrogatories and requests for production from Plaintiffs.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated herein.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated herein.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated herein.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Responses From 17th Street LLC to Special Interrogatories

            Defendant moves to compel responses from 17th Street LLC to the special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Defendant propounded four sets of discovery, including the set at issue here, to Plaintiffs on November 3, 2022. (Declaration of Matthew Chipman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A-D.) Responses were initially due on December 5. On that date, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested and received a two-week extension to December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. E.) To date, however, Defendant has received no responses from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)

            Plaintiffs responded to this motion that Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to provide responses due to family matters and work from other cases demanding his attention. (Declaration of Sassoon Sales ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs are not opposed to providing responses but request one week after the hearing to provide responses. As there is no opposition, the Court finds that an order compelling responses is warranted.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Responses From 17th Street LLC to Requests for Production

            Defendant moves to compel responses from 17th Street LLC to Requests for Production propounded to Plaintiff.

Four Motions in One

            Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

Here, Defendant improperly combined requests to compel responses to two sets of special interrogatories and two sets of requests for production into one filing. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to pay an additional $180.00 in filing fees to have the additional requests within the motion heard within 10 days of the date of this order. The Court’s ruling on the additional requests is conditioned upon Defendant’s payment of these filing fees.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Defendant propounded four sets of discovery, including the set at issue here, to Plaintiffs on November 3, 2022. (Declaration of Matthew Chipman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A-D.) Responses were initially due on December 5. On that date, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested and received a two-week extension to December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. E.) To date, however, Defendant has received no responses from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)

            Plaintiffs responded to this motion that Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to provide responses due to family matters and work from other cases demanding his attention. (Declaration of Sassoon Sales ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs are not opposed to providing responses but request one week after the hearing to provide responses. As there is no opposition, the Court finds that an order compelling responses is warranted.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Responses From 17th Street Complex LLC to Special Interrogatories

            Defendant moves to compel responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to the special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Defendant propounded four sets of discovery, including the set at issue here, to Plaintiffs on November 3, 2022. (Declaration of Matthew Chipman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A-D.) Responses were initially due on December 5. On that date, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested and received a two-week extension to December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. E.) To date, however, Defendant has received no responses from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)

            Plaintiffs responded to this motion that Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to provide responses due to family matters and work from other cases demanding his attention. (Declaration of Sassoon Sales ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs are not opposed to providing responses but request one week after the hearing to provide responses. As there is no opposition, the Court finds that an order compelling responses is warranted.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Responses From 17th Street Complex LLC to Requests for Production

            Defendant moves to compel responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Requests for Production propounded to Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Defendant propounded four sets of discovery, including the set at issue here, to Plaintiffs on November 3, 2022. (Declaration of Matthew Chipman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A-D.) Responses were initially due on December 5. On that date, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested and received a two-week extension to December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. E.) To date, however, Defendant has received no responses from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)

            Plaintiffs responded to this motion that Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to provide responses due to family matters and work from other cases demanding his attention. (Declaration of Sassoon Sales ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs are not opposed to providing responses but request one week after the hearing to provide responses. As there is no opposition, the Court finds that an order compelling responses is warranted.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION:

            For the reasons above, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated above.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated above.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses from 17th Street Complex LLC to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on Defendant’s payment of filing fees in connection with this motion, as stated above.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 6, 2023                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.