On 09/21/2017 LUIS A RODRIGUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DOUGLAS D ALVAREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
RODRIGUEZ LUIS A
ALVAREZ DOUGLAS D
DOES 1 TO 50
PRIMUSHKO MARIA V LAW OFFICE OF
SPRIGGS SCOTT B. ESQ.
3/4/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
10/10/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
9/21/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (-FSC: 8-15-19 Trial: 8-22-19); Filed by LUIS A RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff); DOUGLAS D ALVAREZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Change of name and mailing address); Filed by LUIS A RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by DOUGLAS D ALVAREZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by DOUGLAS D ALVAREZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by DOUGLAS D ALVAREZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
AnswerRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by LUIS A RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by LUIS A RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC676816 Hearing Date: February 05, 2021 Dept: 32
PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at firstname.lastname@example.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
February 5, 2021
Motion to Compel Compliance
Plaintiff Luis A. Rodriguez
Defendant Douglas D. Alvarez
Plaintiff Luis A. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Douglas D. Alvarez (“Defendant”) to comply with his agreement to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, set two (“RPD”). Defendant opposes the motion.
To compel Defendant’s compliance with his agreement to respond, Plaintiff need only demonstrate Defendant failed to comply as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff has shown that, on October 27, 2020, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s RPD, and agreed to produce responsive documents. As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant had not produced the documents. (Declaration of Arnold W. Gross, ¶ 9, Exh. 4.) After Plaintiff filed the motion, Defendant produced the documents on January 7, 2021. (Declaration of Qinglan Ye, ¶ 4.) The motion is therefore moot except as to sanctions.
In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) prior to this motion. Pursuant to the Court’s current Amended General Order Re: Personal Injury Court Procedures, which is available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website, lead or other designated counsel for the parties with full authority, must participate in an IDC before the Court will hear any motion to compel further responses to discovery. Plaintiff’s motion is not a motion to compel further discovery responses. It is a motion to compel Defendant to produce documents in compliance with Plaintiff’s RPD. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not required to schedule an IDC.
The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to timely serve discovery responses was an abuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) The evidence before the Court warrants a finding that Defendant is at fault for the failure to timely respond. (Declaration of Qinglan Ye, ¶ 4.) The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $810, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Therefore, the Court deems Plaintiff’s motion is moot except as to sanctions. Regarding sanctions, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $810 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.
Case Number: BC676816 Hearing Date: January 11, 2021 Dept: 32
luis A. Rodriguez,
douglas D. Alvarez,
Case No.: BC676816
Hearing Date: January 11, 2021
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to compel discovery responses
Plaintiff Luis A. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Douglas D. Alvarez (“Defendant”) to produce documents in compliance with Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”). Plaintiff served the RPDs on September 2, 2020. (Declaration of Arnold W. Gross, ¶ 3.) On September 29, 2020, Defendant’s counsel requested and received an extension to October 15, 2020. (Id., ¶ 5.) Then, Defendant requested and received a second extension to October 22, 2020. (Id., ¶ 6.) Then, Defendant’s counsel requested and received a third extension to October 30, 2020. (Id., ¶ 7.) Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a deadline of December 4, 2020. (Id., ¶ 8.) This motion was filed on December 17, 2020.
Defendant argues that the motion is defective because Plaintiff did not schedule an informal discovery conference (“IDC”). IDCs are required before filing a motion to compel further responses, not a motion to compel initial responses. Defendant argues that the failure to produce discovery is due to the inadvertence of counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiff was sufficiently accommodating to Defendant in this matter. Therefore, the motion is granted. The Court orders Defendant to provide verified responses to the RPDs, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,501.65 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally. The Court finds that the failure to produce discovery constitutes an abuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. The Court orders Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,561.65, based upon six hours of attorney time at $250 per hour plus one filing fee of $61.65. The sanctions are due within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: January 11, 2021 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases