This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/22/2020 at 01:42:10 (UTC).

AMR HUSSEIN VS MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/09/2018 AMR HUSSEIN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7779

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HUSSEIN AMR

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

VEGA MIKAL AURORA

PERKINS AMY FARRIS

PERKINS TANNER STEVEN

VEGA SIMONA

PAULEY MATTHEW VAN PETTEN

DOES 1 TO 100 INCLUSIVE

PAULEY JOANNE DOYLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

GEOULLA DANIEL DANNY

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

PATEL RAJEEV SUSHIL

KULUVA CAROL D.

ZIPPE KENT D.

KRUEGER COREY

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION

11/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

11/6/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/3/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Ruling

3/4/2020: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISCOVERY ORDER; DECLARATION OF COREY E. KRUEGER; EXHIBITS

3/11/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISCOVERY ORDER; DECLARATION OF COREY E. KRUEGER; EXHIBITS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION)

3/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

3/23/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Separate Statement

2/19/2020: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING AND CHANGE OF HEARING DATES AND DEPARTMENT NUMBER

1/16/2020: Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING AND CHANGE OF HEARING DATES AND DEPARTMENT NUMBER

Cross-Complaint

1/8/2020: Cross-Complaint

Answer

1/8/2020: Answer

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, BY DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY AND JOANNE DO

12/20/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, BY DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY AND JOANNE DO

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/27/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

10/10/2019: Answer

Answer

8/27/2019: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

8/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Summons -

3/9/2018: Summons -

Complaint -

3/9/2018: Complaint -

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/15/2021
  • Hearing10/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • Hearing01/28/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Inspection Demands, Set Two; Sanctions) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant Amy Farris Perkins' Motion to Compel Responses to I...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses); Filed by Amy Farris Perkins (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiff's Opposition); Filed by Amr Hussein (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketMotion re: (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF COREY E. KRUEGER; EXHIBIT); Filed by Matthew Van Petten Pauley (Defendant); Joanne Doyle Pauley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
64 More Docket Entries
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Matthew Van Petten Pauley (Defendant); Joanne Doyle Pauley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Matthew Van Petten Pauley (Defendant); Joanne Doyle Pauley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Amy Farris Perkins (Defendant); Tanner Steven Perkins (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Amr Hussein (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Amr Hussein (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697779    Hearing Date: November 16, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production (Set One)

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff Amr Hussein (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Van Petten Pauley, Joanne Doyle Pauley, Simona Vega, Mikal Aurora Vega, Amy Farris Perkins, and Tanner Steven Perkins.  Plaintiff alleges general and motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on March 10, 2016.

On July 13, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins filed a motion to compel responses to Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for November 16, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Request for Production (All Set One).

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins also asks the Court to order Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendant Amy Farris Perkins $435 in monetary sanctions for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff counsel emailed Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ counsel asking for all service of discovery to be emailed as a result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s office working remotely in response to COVID-19.  (Farid Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  The March 17, 2020 email identified Mahsa Farid’s, Gilda Pashai’s, Carolina A. Gonzalez’s, and a general mail box’s email addresses for discovery to be emailed to.  (Ibid.)  On March 23, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins served Request for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Patel Decl., 2, Exh. A.)  On June 12, 2020, Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ counsel sought to meet and confer with an attorney at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office, Daniel Geoulla, by email.  (Patel Decl., 5, Exh. B.)  Daniel Geoulla is not the handling attorney.  (Farid Decl., 8, Exh. C.)

The Court finds the motion cannot be granted.  Defendant Amy Farris Perkins’ failure to comply with Plaintiff’s reasonable March 17, 2020 email request that discovery be served by e-mail belies the motion.  The Court will not deem Plaintiff’s objections waived.  The filing of this motion demonstrates a lack of professional curtesy. Thus, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant Amy Farris Perkins is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.