Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV22335, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22335    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     August 6, 2024                       TRIAL DATE: February 11, 2025

CASE:                         Meena Fatemah Sher v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

CASE NO.:                 23STCV22335           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES (x4)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Meena Fatemah Sher

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 7/17/24

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on September 15, 2023. Plaintiff purchased a 2023 Mercedes-Benz C300W on December 11, 2022 which developed defects to critical systems including the body, electrical, braking, and powertrain systems.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to four sets of discovery served on Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission is DENIED.

            This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiff paying $180 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to four sets of discovery served on Defendant.

Multiple Motions

            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, Plaintiff seeks in one motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production and special interrogatories. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

            The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion on the payment of an additional $180 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Interrogatories and Requests for Production

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production propounded to Defendant.

When a party to whom an inspection demand or an interrogatory is directed fails to respond, a party making the request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [requests for production].) A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of requests for production 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.)

            Plaintiff served the interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant via email on September 7, 2021. (Declaration of Kyle Lee ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) As of the date this motion was filed, no responses had been received. (Id. ¶ y.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling responses to the interrogatories and requests for production without objections.

//

Requests for Admission

            Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling responses to requests for admission. No such motion is contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure, which only authorizes a motion to deem the truth of matters stated in the requests in the event no response is received. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.) Plaintiff’s request is therefore improper.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission is DENIED.

            This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiff paying $180 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  August 6, 2024                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.