On 08/23/2017 DENNIS RAYO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SHIYUE PEI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DENNIS J. LANDIN
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DOES 1 TO 20
LAW OFFICES OF ZULU ALI
ALI ZULU ABDULLAH
8/23/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -
10/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SER...)
10/8/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE
10/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SER...) OF 10/08/2019
1/16/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2/19/2020: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - NOTICE OF REJECTION - EX PARTE APPLICATION WITHOUT HEARING FOR PUBLICATION RE: SHIYUE
2/25/2019: Order - Dismissal
2/25/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Jury Trial)
3/5/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal - Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Dismissal Pursuant to CCP section 473(B)
3/5/2019: Declaration - Declaration of Geoffrey W. Sorkin Esq. in Support of Motion to Vacate Dismissal Pursuant to CCP 473(b)
4/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL)
5/14/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING MOTION) OF 05/14/2019
5/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING MOTION)
6/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DISMISSAL (CCP 473))
12/7/2017: Minute Order -
8/29/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -
9/21/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CORRECT DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS NUNC PRO TUNC; ETC.
9/21/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CORRECT DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS NUNC PRO TUNC; ETC
Hearing04/23/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing (for Publication re: Shiyue)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on First Amended Complaint); Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAmended Complaint (1st); Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff); DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for extension of time to serve pleading and order extending time to serve) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time to Serve); Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Ser...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CORRECT DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS NUNC PRO TUNC; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CORRECT DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS NUNC PRO TUNC; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by DENNIS RAYO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC673825 Hearing Date: February 09, 2021 Dept: 28
Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows. reply has been filed.
On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff Dennis Rayo filed a complaint against Defendant Shiyue Pei for motor vehicle and general negligence. The complaint alleges Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 20, 2015.
On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
On September 9, 2020, the Court found this action and BC673830 were related.
On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to request for production of documents. Defendant filed an opposition on January 25, 2021.
Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendant to serve responses without objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $600.00.
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.
Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)
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 of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)
Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents (Set One) to be due on September 2, 2020. (Motion, Johnson Decl., ¶ 2.) On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff granted Defendant’s request for a three-week extension to serve discovery responses, making the responses due on or before September 23, 2020. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) On September 23, 2020, Defendant requested and Plaintiff granted a second extension for two weeks, making the responses due on October 7, 2020. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) On October 24, 2020, Plaintiff granted Defendant’s third request for an additional extension of two weeks, making the responses due on November 9, 2020. (Id., ¶ 5, Exs. D, E.) On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff granted Defendant’s request for another two-week extension to serve responses to November 23, 2020. (Id., ¶ 6, Exs. F, G.) On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff called Defendant’s counsel to inquire about the past due discovery responses and received a return correspondence explaining Defendant’s counsel was awaiting discovery verification from Defendant. (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. H.) To date, Defendant has failed to serve responses to the discovery request.
In opposition, Defendant argues the motion should be denied because defense counsel has communicated in good faith to Plaintiff’s counsel that the delay in serving responses is due to issues with obtaining signed and dated verifications from Defendant.
As Plaintiff properly served the discovery request and Defendant failed to serve verified responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a court order directing Defendant to provide responses to the discovery request served on Defendant. If Defendant has not served verified responses by the date of the continued hearing, the Court is inclined to grant this motion.
Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is CONTINUED to March 9, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 28.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.¿