Case Number: BC523589 Hearing Date: July 03, 2014 Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA WILLY, )
) Case Number BC 523589
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
JON MORGAN WOODWARD, et al., ) July 3, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production by Defendant Jonathan Woodward came on for hearing on July 3, 2014. Plaintiff Joshua Willy appeared through his counsel of record, ____________________. Defendant Jonathan Woodward appeared through his counsel of record, ___________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The Defendant’s motion to compel further answers is MOOT.

The court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of July, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA WILLY, )
) Case Number BC 523589
Plaintiff, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
JON MORGAN WOODWARD, et al., ) July 3, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case is a personal injury case wherein Plaintiff Joshua Willy (“Plaintiff”) alleges he was enticed by Defendant Jon Morgan Woodward (“Defendant”) to live at Defendant’s apartment, and was thereafter subjected to unwanted physical and sexual contact.

2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 4, 2013, alleging battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, premises liability, and negligence against Defendant and his wife. Discovery apparently commenced.

3. Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and Requests for Production of Documents were served by Defendant on Plaintiff on January 29, 2014. Responses were served on April 16, 2014.

4. Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on April 23, 2014 seeking further responses. Plaintiff responded on April 30, 2014, agreeing to provide further responses by May 12, 2014. Plaintiff represents that he was homeless between May 7, 2014 and May 22, 2014, and subsequently relocated to Maine in June. Defendant received no responses by May 12, 2014.

5. Defendant filed the three present motions on May 28, 2014, seeking further responses to the three discovery requests. Plaintiff filed his untimely opposition on June 26, 2014.

6. General considerations for motions to compel further answer – Under CCP §2030.300, a party may move for an order compelling further answers to an interrogatory if the responding party provides evasive or incomplete answers or where an objection is without merit or too general.

7. Timeliness – A motion to compel further answers under CCP §2030.300 must be brought within 45 days after service of response. CCP §2030.300(c). The motion was timely made.

8. Separate statement — CRC Rule 3.1345(a) requires motions to compel answers at a deposition be accompanied by a separate statement of disputed items. Plaintiff’s motion contains a separate statement and complies with this requirement.

9. Meet and confer – A motion to compel further answers must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP §2016.040. Section 2016.040 requires the declaration to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt was made to resolve each issue presented informally. There is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiffs have met their meet and confer obligations.

10. Mootness – Defendant filed the present motions seeking to compel further responses from the Plaintiff as was promised in the April 30, 2014 correspondence. This was not timely provided. However, Plaintiff presently represents that the responses have since been provided, though the date of such responses and the substance of such responses are unclear. Nevertheless, the provision of supplemental responses obviates the need for the present motion.

11. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and requests for production is MOOT.

12. The court reserves jurisdiction over an award of sanctions as requested by either party pending further order of the court or trial of the action.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of July, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE