Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV38000, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38000    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Ahmad Ali filed this action against Defendant Sylvia Ali (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligence, and (6) motor vehicle.  

The Complaint alleges the following. On or about September 7, 2019, Plaintiff was in the parking lot of the 99 Cents store located at 6236 York Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. (Compl., ¶ 6.) While there, he was assaulted by Defendant. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff attempted to get into Defendant’s vehicle when she suddenly accelerated the vehicle. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff held on to the passenger door and told Defendant to stop. (Compl., ¶ 7.) However, instead of stopping, Plaintiff continued driving until Plaintiff fell off and Defendant then ran over his left leg. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff hit his head on the pavement and lost consciousness. (Compl., ¶ 7.)

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions of $1,590 in connection with the motion.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.  

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)    

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). 

III.      DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 to 9. (See Motion, declaration of Stephen B. Mashney (“Mashney Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 4; Ex. A [Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents]; Ex. B [Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Demand for Production of Documents].)

          On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed an “Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents and for Sanctions.”

However, in the “opposition,” Defendant states that she “does not oppose the Motion to Compel further responses to the Production of Documents, but does oppose the request for sanctions for the same reasons this Court has denied sanctions on the other two discovery Motions-i.e 5^th Amendment objections.” (Opposition, p. 1:21-23.)

Given that Defendant does not oppose the motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 to 9, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to those requests.

With regard to the request for monetary sanctions, Defendant had initially objected to producing further responses “based upon the protection afforded her under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.” (Motion, Mashney Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B, pp. 2:2-3:8.) On August 15, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff also requested sanctions against Defendant in connection with that motion. The Court ruled: “In light of the recent conclusion of Defendant’s criminal proceedings and the meritorious assertion of Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, no sanctions shall be imposed.” (Minute Order dated August 15, 202, p. 1, second to the last paragraph.) For the same reasons the Court stated in its order on August 15, 2022, no sanctions shall be imposed on Defendant.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED, but the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

          Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 9, within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.