This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/05/2020 at 04:05:52 (UTC).

TODD HOFFMAN VS ROBERT TRUMAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/06/2018 TODD HOFFMAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROBERT TRUMAN. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9076

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HOFFMAN TODD

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 99

ESTATE OF EDWARD TRUMAN

TRUMAN ROBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THE NOVAK LAW FIRM P.C.

NOVAK SEAN M. ESQ.

NOVAK SEAN MICHAEL ESQ.

NOVAK SEAN MICHAEL

Defendant Attorneys

ROTH VIRGIL L. ESQ.

ROTH VIRGIL L ESQ.

ROTH VIRGIL L

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET THREE AND FOUR)

7/29/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO); REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET THREE AND FOUR)

Separate Statement

7/29/2020: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

8/4/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

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

8/4/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES) OF 08/05/2020

8/5/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES) OF 08/05/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

8/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO REPLY DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

8/5/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO REPLY DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY

5/26/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF VIRGIL L. ROTH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY

Separate Statement

5/26/2020: Separate Statement

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/26/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/26/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

5/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/27/2020

5/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/27/2020

Stipulation and Order - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES]

2/25/2020: Stipulation and Order - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES]

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: MAY 21, 2020) OF 04/16/2020

4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: MAY 21, 2020) OF 04/16/2020

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ROBERT TRUMAN TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/29/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ROBERT TRUMAN TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

6/6/2018: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/13/2021
  • Hearing12/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • Hearing12/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Tria...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • Docketat 11:38 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES) of 08/05/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (to Continue Trial); Filed by Robert Truman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • DocketANSWER OF DEFENDANT ROBERT TRUMAN TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Robert Truman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Todd Hoffman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Todd Hoffman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Todd Hoffman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709076    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

TODD HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT TRUMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC709076

Hearing Date: August 14, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Defendant Robert Truman (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Todd Hoffman (“Plaintiff”) to certain Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), and Requests for Production (“RPD”). Plaintiff opposes the motion.

On or about August 23, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with FROG, Set One, and RPD, Set One. Plaintiff served responses by mail on October 11, 2018. Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was November 30, 2018.

On September 30, 2019, Defendant served RPD, Set Two, and SROG, Set One. Plaintiff served responses by mail on November 18, 2019. Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was January 7, 2020. Defendant’s counsel admitted in an email that he “has blown the 45-day limit” to file a motion to compel further responses. (Declaration of Farbod Youmtobian, Exh. J.) The email also states: “Unless you are willing to provide further responses or to waive that time limitation, I will have to file additional discovery.” (Ibid.) Then, on March 2, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with the same discovery and now seeks to compel further responses to that duplicative discovery. In his motion, Defendant does not disclose that he previously served the same discovery responses.

Defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant violated the jurisdictional deadline to file this motion. The law is clear that a party who misses the 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel may not circumvent that requirement by serving a subsequent demand for the same discovery. (Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 492-494.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel waived the 45-day deadline. Among others, Defendant relies on an email from Plaintiff’s counsel which states: “Also, with the discovery, we were planning to supplement so there shouldn’t be a need to file a Motion and you needn’t worry about the Motion deadline passing. I will try to have supplemental responses to you by the end of the week.” (Declaration of Farbod Youmtobian, Exh. K.) This email, like the others cited by Defendant, does not contain any agreement to toll the 45-day deadline. Defendant should have filed motions on or before the deadline if he believed that the discovery responses were inadequate.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and his counsel-of-record, Virgil Roth, Esq., in the amount of $5,250. The Court declines to impose sanctions in this case. The Court finds that the parties had a good faith dispute whether the jurisdictional deadline applied, and Plaintiff’s counsel bears some responsibility for this dispute, given the nature of the emails in the record. Therefore, an award of sanctions to either side would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is denied. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 14, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC709076    Hearing Date: August 11, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

TODD HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT TRUMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC709076

Hearing Date: August 11, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE

The Court is dark for motions on August 11, 2020. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to August 14, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice of the continuance. The Court issues the following tentative order:

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Robert Truman (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Todd Hoffman (“Plaintiff”) to certain Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), and Requests for Production (“RPD”). Plaintiff opposes the motion.

On or about August 23, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with FROG, Set One, and RPD, Set One. Plaintiff served responses by mail on October 11, 2018. Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was November 30, 2018.

On September 30, 2019, Defendant served RPD, Set Two, and SROG, Set One. Plaintiff served responses by mail on November 18, 2019. Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was January 7, 2020. Defendant’s counsel admitted in an email that he “has blown the 45-day limit” to file a motion to compel further responses. (Declaration of Farbod Youmtobian, Exh. J.) The email also states: “Unless you are willing to provide further responses or to waive that time limitation, I will have to file additional discovery.” (Ibid.) Then, on March 2, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with the same discovery and now seeks to compel further responses to that duplicative discovery. In his motion, Defendant does not disclose that he previously served the same discovery responses.

Defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant violated the jurisdictional deadline to file this motion. The law is clear that a party who misses the 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel may not circumvent that requirement by serving a subsequent demand for the same discovery. (Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 492-494.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and his counsel-of-record, Virgil Roth, Esq., in the amount of $5,250. The Court finds that Defendant knowingly and intentionally attempted to circumvent the jurisdictional deadline to file this motion and did not disclose relevant facts to the Court, i.e., that he previously served the same discovery requests. As such, Defendant’s conduct constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, warranting sanctions. The Court orders Defendant and his counsel-of-record, Virgil Roth, Esq., jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel, in the amount of $2,500, based upon ten hours of attorney time at a reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is denied. Defendant and his counsel-of-record, Virgil Roth, Esq., shall pay sanctions in the amount of $2,500 within thirty (30) days of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 11, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court