This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/11/2021 at 21:45:33 (UTC).

XU WANG, ET AL. VS AMBER SUN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/20/2020 XU WANG filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against AMBER SUN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0880

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WANG XU

XIE LUXI

Defendants

APEX LAW CENTER

SUN AMBER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MA RICK X.

Defendant Attorney

SONG RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FO...)

7/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FO...)

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SROG'S

7/19/2021: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SROG'S

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RFP'S

7/19/2021: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RFP'S

Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO SI MTN

7/19/2021: Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO SI MTN

Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINITIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO RPD MTN

7/19/2021: Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINITIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO RPD MTN

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

7/19/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO RFA MTN

7/19/2021: Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE OPPOSITION TO RFA MTN

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

7/19/2021: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE)

1/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/11/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/15/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

1/19/2021: Answer

Case Management Statement

3/2/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

3/4/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

3/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

5/10/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

5/10/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

5/10/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/31/2022
  • Hearing01/31/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • Hearing01/20/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Hearing10/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Order (Compelling Responses without Objections to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Request for Sanctions filed on behalf of Plaintiffs) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (To Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests for Admissions, Set One Admitted and Conclusively Established; Monetary Sanctions of $3,600.00 filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Xu Wang, et al.) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Order (Compelling Responses without Objections to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); Sanctions of $3,600.00 filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Xu Wang, et al.) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Status Conference (Re Mediation and Discovery) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion To Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests fo...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted); Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to RFP's); Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff); Luxi Xie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff); Luxi Xie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff); Luxi Xie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff); Luxi Xie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Xu Wang (Plaintiff); Luxi Xie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20GDCV00880 Hearing Date: July 23, 2021 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: \t1\t\t\t
Date:\t\t7/23/2021\t\t\t
Case No:\t\t20GDCV00880\t\t\t\tTrial Date:\tJanuary 31, 2022
Case Name:\tWang, et al. v. Sun, et al.
\t
DISCOVERY MOTIONS (3)
Moving Party: \tPlaintiffs Xu Wang and Luxi Xie
Responding Party:\tDefendant Amber Sun
\t\t
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
Order Deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One, Deemed Admitted
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Xu Wang and Luxi Xie allege that defendant Amber Sun, the Chief Operating Officer of defendant Apex Law Center, advertises in the San Gabriel Valley area that defendants provide immigration services to members of the public, that Apex Law Center is a large law firm and that defendant Sun is an attorney with more than 30 years’ experience in preparing immigration petitions for Chinese Nationals.
Plaintiffs allege that based on defendants’ advertisements, in December of 2014, plaintiffs went to the office of defendants to learn how defendants could help them obtain a green card, and defendant Sun gave a presentation which led plaintiff to believe that defendants could lawfully help them apply for an EB-5 visa. Thereafter, plaintiffs signed an agreement with defendants wherein defendants would prepare plaintiffs’ EB-5 petition. Plaintiffs allege that although defendant Sun signed the agreement as an attorney, she referred the matter to a licensed attorney who prepared and filed the immigration petition. In June of 2020, after waiting more than five years for an answer from USCIS regarding the immigration petition, plaintiffs discovered that defendant Sun was not a licensed attorney and was not the one who filed the petition on plaintiffs’ behalf.
The complaint alleges causes of action for unlawful immigration consultant practice, unfair business practices, false advertising and fraud.
ANALYSIS:
Interrogatories and Document Demands
Procedural
No Separate Statements
\tThere have been no separate statements filed with the motions.
CRC Rule 3.1345 requires that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.”
The motions that require a separate statement include a motion:
“(2) To compel further responses to interrogatories;
(3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things;
The motions seem to argue that the motions here are motions to compel responses to discovery, not to compel further responses. However, there is no question that there were responses served to the subject discovery, and the notices of motion in connection with the interrogatories and documents motions both request “further responses” to the subject discovery. [Amended Motions, p. 1]. The discovery responses here were served on April 12, 2021, and April 20, 2021. The motions were filed on May 12, 2021.
To the extent responses are sought based on the argument that there has been a waiver of objections, this does not transform the motions into motions for initial responses; plaintiffs are obligated to seek further responses and argue why the objections are improper; they have been waived.
Specifically, as argued in the opposition, under CCP §2030.300
“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
Responses were clearly received here, as they are attached to the moving papers. The motions here should have been for orders compelling a further response, not responses, and are subject to the separate statement requirement.
In Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, the court of appeal considered a challenge to a trial court’s order denying a motion to compel discovery, which the trial court had denied on both substantive and procedural grounds. The court of appeal held, “we conclude that the procedural basis cited by the trial court was a sufficient basis for the exercise of discretion to deny the motion to compel.” Mills, at 892. The court of appeal accordingly did not discuss the substantive ground addressed by the trial court. Mills, at 892, n. 23. In Mills, a separate statement had been submitted, but did not set forth the full responses to each of the discovery requests at issue, instead grouping together several requests, stating responses “in relevant part” and truncating some responses. The court of appeal also noted that the statement provided statements of reasons for compelling further responses which were confusing because it was not indicated to which request or requests the reasons related. Mills, at 893. The court of appeal rejected an argument that the full responses had been available to the court as the responses were attached to the motion, holding that the rule expressly forbids this practice by requiring the statement to be “full and complete,” and expressly not permitting material to be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. Mills, at 893, citing former Rule 335 and current Rule 3.1020(c).
The court of appeal considered former Rule 335, which has not been significantly modified in these respects in the current rule, and concluded:
“We conclude that because Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of former rule 335, the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis. (Cf. Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145 [230 Cal. Rptr. 281] [describing trial court's denial of motions to compel discovery because of a nonconforming separate statement].)”
Mills, at 893.
Here, no separate statements have been filed at all, let alone defective ones, and the court is within its discretion to deny the motions on this ground alone.
Meet and Confer
Defendant in opposition argues that the motions should also be denied for failure of plaintiffs to meet and confer properly prior to filing these motions.
Plaintiffs in the moving paper suggest no meet and confer was required because the motions are to compel responses, not further responses, which the court does not accept, as explained above.
It appears from the moving papers that after the responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions were served on April 12, 2021, counsel for plaintiffs the same date did send an e-mail indicating that no additional extensions of time to respond had been granted, and that objections had been waived, and requesting responses without objections. [See Exs. E, F]. There is no meet and confer referenced taking place after the Responses to Requests for Production of Documents were served on April 20, 2021.
It therefore appears that arguably a meet and confer occurred with respect to the interrogatories, but not with respect to the document demands.
Under CCP § 2031.310, permitting a party to move to compel a further response to a document demand, such motion, “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” CCP section 2031.310(b)(2).
Section 2016.040 requires:
“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
\tThe motion as to the document demands could be denied on the additional ground that the motion for further responses is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.
\t
Substantive
As noted above, the motions confusingly seek “further responses,” in the notices of motion, but then relies only on legal authority pursuant to which a propounding party may move for an order to compel initial responses to discovery.
This court views this as improper, as discussed above, because responses had been received prior to the motions being filed, and motions to compel further responses should have been filed.
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to further responses to the subject discovery, without objections, as defendant did not serve timely responses to the discovery, so waived objections.
CCP section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”
A similar provision applies to document demands under CCP § 2031.300.
CCP section 2030.260(a) provides, “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, ...the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original response to them on the propounding party...” A similar provision establishes a 30-day deadline for responding to document demands. CCP § 2031.260(a).
Here, the discovery was served on January 25, 2021, by e-mail service. [Ma Decl., Ex. A]. Permitting an additional two days for service by electronic service, responses were due on February 26, 2021.
The parties agreed to an extension of time to March 29, 2021. [Ma Decl., para. 5, Ex. B]. On March 26, 2021, counsel for plaintiffs received an email from counsel for defendant requesting an extension to April 12, 2021. [Ma Decl., para. 6, Ex. C]. Counsel for plaintiffs indicates that the requested extension was not granted, so that the discovery responses received on April 12, 2021, and April 20, 2021, are not timely and objections have been waived. [Ma Decl., para. 7].
Under CCP section 2030.270:
“(a) The party propounding interrogatories and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2030.260.
(b) This agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.
(c) Unless this agreement expressly states otherwise, it is effective to preserve to the responding party the right to respond to any interrogatory to which the agreement applies in any manner specified in Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.”
A similar provision applies to document demands under CCP § 2031.270.
Here, the parties agreed to an extension to March 29, 2021, which was confirmed in writing. The email requesting an extension to April 12, 2021 states that the previous extension was allowed, “with indication that it could be extended if requested.” [Ma Decl., Ex. C]. The e-mail states, “This email is to request the extension until Monday, April 12, 2021.” The e-mail, dated March 26, 2021, also states, “As this is a reasonable short extension, I hope this request until Monday, 4-12-21 is ok. Unless I hear from you otherwise, will e-serve your office these responses by then.” [Id]. Evidently, counsel for plaintiffs did not respond to this e-mail and is now taking the position that no extension was granted beyond the March 29, 2021 extension.
Counsel for defendant indicates that in February of 2021, counsel telephoned counsel for plaintiffs and requested an extension to July 15, 2021, and that counsel for plaintiffs stated that he could grant the extension but needed to make the extension every 30 days because of the peculiarities with his law office software calendaring system. [Song Decl., para. 3]. Counsel for defendant indicates that the e-mail of March 26, 2021 was accordingly sent with knowledge that attorney Ma had already orally agreed in mid-February to a further extension if requested. [Song Decl., para. 4]. Counsel for defendant also submits an e-mail sent on April 7, 2021, confirming that discovery responses were “presently due” on April 12, but requesting an extension to “4-20-21” to provide responses only for the “RPDS,” and stating, “I thank you in advance for your gracious courtesy in this RPD extension until 4-20-21.” [Song Decl., Ex. 2].
This exchange appears a bit sloppy on the part of counsel for defendant, particularly once the e-mail regarding the lack of an extension was sent on April 12, 2021, and counsel for defendant nevertheless delayed in serving the responses to requests for production until April 20, 2021.
However, it also appears that there was a genuine misunderstanding here with respect to an initial representation that it would be no problem to have an extension of time if such extensions were formally requested in 30-day increments. It would appear that the court could reasonably find here that there was an agreed upon extension, confirmed in a writing which was not contradicted by counsel for plaintiffs at the time, at least as to April 12, 2021, so that the responses to the interrogatories were not untimely, and appropriately asserted objections. As to the document demands, the court could also reasonably find that the April 7, 2021 e-mail reasonably confirmed that initial understanding that extensions through July, 2021 would be granted, and specified the due date of April 20, 2021 in writing.
Even if the court were to credit counsel for plaintiffs’ statement that he did not grant the extensions, and did not intend to do so, as set forth above, under CCP section 2030.290 provides:
“(a)… The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Section 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”
There is no question here that the responding party has subsequently served responses in substantial compliance with the Code.
Case law holds that belated objections are not valid unless the defaulting party demonstrates good cause to grant relief from default, and that the burden is on the defaulting party to seek and justify relief. Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, 778.
Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is defined as some condition or situation in which a party is unexpectedly placed to his injury without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Credit Managers Association v. National Industrial Business Alliance (1984 2nd Dist.) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166. The burden is on the party seeking relief to show why he is entitled to the relief on these grounds. Bruskey v. Bruskey (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d. 472.
The test of whether neglect was excusable is “whether a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances might have made the same error.” Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.
It would appear that, based on the declarations of both sets of counsel, and the e-mail exchange, counsel for defendant mistakenly believed, based on previous representations by counsel for plaintiffs, that extensions through July had already been agreed to, so long as requested in writing in increments to satisfy counsel for plaintiffs’ calendaring system, and that this understanding was particularly understandable given that counsel for plaintiffs did not respond otherwise to the e-mails requesting those extensions of time, and asking for a response if counsel for plaintiffs believed otherwise. The court even if not necessary, does grant relief from waiver of objections under the circumstances, based on counsel Song’s mistake or excusable neglect.
The motions accordingly are denied.
Sanctions are sought under the statutory authority applicable to motions to compel responses, not further responses. With respect to interrogatories, under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless if finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP section 2031.300(c).
The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429.
Here, the motions are denied, but the court finds that the parties were each substantially justified in taking the positions they have pursued with respect to the timeliness of the responses to the subject discovery. No sanctions are awarded to either side.
Requests for Admissions
The motion is brought under CCP § 2033.280, under which a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests.” In addition, the requesting party may move for an order that “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction....” CCP Section 2033.280(b). The code specifies that “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admissions that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” CCP section 2033.280(c).
The motion concedes that responses to the requests for admissions were in fact served on April 12, 2021 and received that date. [Ma Decl., para. 7, Ex. D]. The motion was nevertheless filed after a response had been served. There is no basis for this motion having been filed. The appropriate method of pursuing an argument that objections had been waived would have been to file a motion under CCP Section 2033.290, which provides:
“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”
(Emphasis added).
This motion is improper and is denied. Even if the Court were to consider the motion, the moving papers themselves attach proof that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served before the hearing, in fact, before the filing of the motion, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. [Ma Decl., Ex. D].
This leaves the issue of sanctions, which are sought by both sides.
With respect to a motion to deem Requests for Admissions admitted, CCP section 2033.280(c) provides:
“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admissions necessitated this motion.”
This motion was not necessitated and is denied, so sanctions will not be awarded.
The opposition seeks sanctions under the provision governing motions to compel further responses to requests for admissions, but the motion was not brought under that statute. Defendant also seeks sanctions under CCP section 2023.030(b) and (i), under which “Misuses of the discovery process include… (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures,” and, failing to meet and confer where required. Where there has been misuse of the discovery process, under Section 2023.030(a), the 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.”
A motion to deem request for admissions admitted does not require a meet and confer, so sanctions will not be awarded on this basis. The opposition also fails to establish how a discovery method has been used in a manner not complying with its specified procedures. While the Court finds this motion without merit, sanctions have not been properly sought on that ground.
No sanctions are awarded.
\t
RULING:
Amended Motion for Order Compelling Responses Without Objections to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is DENIED.
The Court has reluctantly considered the motion despite the fact it is not accompanied by a separate statement and was incorrectly reserved for hearing as a motion to compel discovery, but not further discovery, when the Court views the motion as a motion to compel further responses to discovery.
The Court finds that the discovery responses were timely served within an informal agreed upon extension of time confirmed in writing, so that objections were not waived. In the alternative, the Court finds that if there was not in fact a meeting of the minds with respect to the discovery response extension, counsel for defendant has sufficiently established that any waiver of objections was the result of counsel’s mistake or excusable neglect, and the Court further finds that responses substantially complying with the Code have been subsequently served, so that relief from waiver of objections would be granted under CCP section 2030.290.
Monetary Sanctions sought by both sides are DENIED.
Amended Motion for Order Compelling Responses Without Objections to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is DENIED.
The Court has reluctantly considered the motion despite the fact it is not accompanied by a declaration showing a meet and confer following the service of the subject responses on April 20, 2021, is not accompanied by a separate statement, and was incorrectly reserved for hearing as a motion to compel discovery, but not further discovery, when the Court views the motion as a motion to compel further responses to discovery.
The Court finds that the discovery responses were timely served within an informal agreed upon extension of time confirmed in writings, so that objections were not waived. In the alternative, the Court finds that if there was not in fact a meeting of the minds with respect to the discovery response extensions, counsel for defendant has sufficiently established that any waiver of objections was the result of counsel’s mistake or excusable neglect, and the Court further finds that responses substantially complying with the Code have been subsequently served, so that relief from waiver of objections would be granted under CCP § 2031.300.
Monetary sanctions requested by both sides are DENIED.
Amended Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests for Admissions Set One Admitted and Conclusively Established is DENIED.
Monetary sanctions sought by both sides are denied.
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers audio and video appearance at a cost of $15.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a face mask over both the nose and mouth. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.
"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MA RICK X.