Mayra Guerrero v. Prime Masonry Materials, et al.
Case No: 17CV03332
Hearing Date: Tue May 29, 2018 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Answers; Motion Compel Responses

Two unopposed motions to compel any responses to discovery.

Attorneys

George J. Hernandez, Jr., Archie F. Chin for Prime Masonry Materials

Mayra Guerrero is self-represented

Rulings: GRANTED; the responses to discovery, on both motions, are due on June 29, 2018.

Analysis:

The first motion [filed 3/2/18] is to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to Request for Production, Set No. One, served on plaintiff on November 6, 2017, within thirty (30) days of the hearing on this motion.

The second motion [filed 3/2/18] is to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, served on plaintiff on November 6, 2017, within thirty (30) days of the hearing on this motion.

The motions were set for 4/3/18; the motions were continued to 4/10/18.

On 4/10/18 the Court granted plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved on that date and further ruled that Defendants’ Motions to Compel were CONTINUED to May 29, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. in anticipation that Plaintiff will either (a) have a new lawyer in place who will appear and respond to the Motions on that date and time, or (b) will elect to go forward and represent herself. That in the event Plaintiff has not secured the assistance of a lawyer by that date and time, the Court orders Plaintiff, Mayra Guerrero, to appear in this courtroom on May 29, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to advise the Court on the progress of obtaining a lawyer or tell the Court she will proceed by self-representation. Also that the Court will not, at that juncture, modify, vacate or extend the Case Management Conference date of July 31, 2018, or the Mandatory Settlement Conference date of August 31, 2018, or the Trial Date of September 18, 2018. Plaintiff must assume, until further order of this Court that those dates remain in place. However, the Court will very likely modify and extend those dates when a new lawyer comes into the case to accommodate the new lawyer or Plaintiff elects to proceed by self-representation. On the other hand, the Court is not likely to modify or extend those dates if (1) there is no new lawyer retained and (2) Plaintiff elects not to proceed as a self-represented litigant, except for good cause shown.

There is no response to the motions filed. They should both be granted.