Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV18157, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18157    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff Ivan E. Leon Maldonado propounded discovery on Defendant FCA US LLC.  (Lee Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff never received any responses or contact from Defendant.  (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.)

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a single motion to compel responses to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Request for Production, Set One; and (4) Request for Admissions, Set One.

According to Defendant, it timely served verified responses on December 20, 2023.  (Dao Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.)

According to Plaintiff, there is no record of receipt in three of the firm’s email accounts/databases.  (Lee Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.)  However, Plaintiff omits mention of the fourth email address on Defendant’s proofs of service.

Plaintiff contends that “[h]ad Plaintiff received FCA’s discovery responses, Plaintiff would have simply taken the instant motion off-calendar.”  (Reply at p. 2.)  Plaintiff did receive Defendant’s discovery responses, even if only with Defendant’s opposition to this motion.  Plaintiff’s contention that “a single responsive email from Defendant indicating when Plaintiff could expect its untimely responses would have resolved the issue” is not well-taken when Defendant already asserted that it did serve the responses (and thus, in Defendant’s view, Plaintiff was not owed any untimely responses).  (Reply at p. 2.)  The Court cannot conclude that Defendant “deliberately ignored Plaintiff’s requests for its discovery responses” in light of the meager record on this motion.  (Reply at pp. 2-3.)

In any event, Plaintiff is now in receipt of Defendant’s responses.  (See Dao Decl., Ex. A.)  The motion to compel responses is DENIED AS MOOT.

Additionally, each category of discovery should have been filed as a separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations.  Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance is that of four motions.  This unfairly allows Plaintiff to take only one hearing reservation (instead of four) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants.   All parties are ordered not to do this again and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay three additional filing fees within 10 days.

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Payment of Additional Filing Fees is scheduled for April 24, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 21st day of March 2024