Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV42443, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42443    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ABDELRAHMAN MUSTAFA ABDELRAHMAN,

                   Plaintiff,

          vs.

 

PACIFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC.; FRANCISCO JAVIER PROA NARANJO; Does 1 to 5,

 

                   Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 20STCV42443

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR ORDERS COMPELLING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

December 9, 2022

 

          On November 5, 2020, Abdelrahman Mustafa Abdelrahman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Pacific Traffic Control, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Francisco Javier Proa Naranjo for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.  On April 14, 2022, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff.  Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to provide responses on November 4, 2022.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

          Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Defendant’s counsel served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff on April 14, 2022, and responses were due on May 17, 2022.  (Foreman Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Exh. A.)  Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff asking for responses on July 15, 2022 and re-served the discovery requests on September 6, 2022.  (Foreman Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Exh. C.)  Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff meet and confer letters on May 19 and October 12, 2022.  (Foreman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10; Exhs. B, D.)  Plaintiff has neither responded nor asked for an extension.  (Foreman Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One within 20 days of issuance of this order.

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 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.