Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2022-01250224 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01250224, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 3-17-23 under ROA No. 44, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

On 8-30-22, Plaintiff served Defendant (Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval) with “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One.” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff and Defendant extended the time for a response to this discovery request. (Manukyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendant has not provided a response to this discovery request, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 11.)

Since Responding Party has not provided responses to the discovery request at issue, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval’s Responses to Form Interrogatories filed on 3-17-23 under ROA No. 44. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to “Form Interrogatories—General Set No. One” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250) within 21 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

The court awards a monetary sanction in the amount of $550.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Manukyan Decl., ¶ 12; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa’s Sandoval’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 3-16-23 under ROA No. 36., is GRANTED.

On 8-30-22, Plaintiff served Defendant (Roelmer Ocho Sandoval) with “Plaintiff Javier Mejia Herrera’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval (Set One).” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff and Defendant extended the time for a response to this discovery request. (Manukyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendant has not provided a response to this discovery request, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 11.)

Since Responding Party has not provided responses to the discovery request at issue, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa’s Sandoval’s Responses to Special Interrogatories filed on 3-16-23 under ROA No. 36. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to “Plaintiff Javier Mejia Herrera’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval (Set One)” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250) within 21 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

The court awards a monetary sanction in the amount of $275.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Manukyan Decl., ¶ 12; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval’s Responses to Requests for Production Set One (Motion), filed on 3-17-23 under ROA No. 48, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states in part, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

On 8-30-22, Plaintiff served Defendant (Roelmer Ocho Sandoval) with “Plaintiff Javier Mejia Herrera’s Special Inspection Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval (Set One).” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff and Defendant extended the time for a response to this discovery request. (Manukyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendant has not provided a response to this discovery request, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 11.)

Since Responding Party has not provided responses to the discovery request at issue, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval’s Responses to Requests for Production Set One filed on 3-17-23 under ROA No. 48. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to “Plaintiff Javier Mejia Herrera’s Special Inspection Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Roelmer Ochoa Sandoval (Set One)” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250) within 21 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

The court awards a monetary sanction in the amount of $275.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (h); Manukyan Decl., ¶ 12; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Zudelmy Sandoval’s Responses to Requests for Production Set One (Motion), filed on 3-16-23 under ROA No. 40, is GRANTED.

On 8-30-22, Plaintiff served Defendant (Roelmer Ocho Sandoval) with “Plaintiff’s Inspection Demand to Defendant Zudelmy Sandoval (Set One).” (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff and Defendant extended the time for a response to this discovery request. (Manukyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-10.) Defendant has not provided a response to this discovery request, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 14.)

Since Responding Party has not provided responses to the discovery request at issue, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Javier Mejia Herrera) unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Zudelmy Sandoval’s Responses to Requests for Production Set One filed on 3-16-23 under ROA No. 40. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to “Plaintiff’s Inspection Demand to Defendant Zudelmy Sandoval (Set One) (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250) within 21 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Plaintiff is to give notice.