Case Number: SC120821    Hearing Date: September 30, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

SEPT. 30, 2014 CALENDAR NO. 2

SC120821 — DI SAIA v. DESAI, et al.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COURT TO REVIEW THE INVOLVED PROPERTIES

The motion lacks merit. CCP 651 provides, in pertinent part: “[W]here the court finds that such a view would be proper and would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case, the court may order a view of any of the following: (1) The property which is the subject of litigation…” (emphasis added). That standard is inapplicable when a Court determines a motion for summary judgment. In other words, CCP 651 does not permit the Court to view the properties in connection with determining the pending summary judgment motion. Notably, Plaintiffs have provided no authority for the proposition that CCP 651 applies to a motion under CCP 437c.

In any event, the Court sees no reason why, in response to the upcoming summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs cannot document matters with admissible pictures, maps, diagrams, and the like.

Motion is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion pertaining to trial in this matter.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ANJINI DESAI’S FURTHER RESPONSES FORM INTERROGATORIES

Off-calendar per moving party.

The Court notes that the motion would not have been required had defendant complied with her discovery obligations in the first place.

In this regard: Defense counsel is reminded that the service of supplemental responses after the filing of a motion to compel but prior to the hearing thereon does not deprive the Court of the ability to order Code-compliant further responses. See, e.g., Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 (defendants’ untimely interrogatory responses did not divest trial court of authority to compel responses). Indeed, the Court is not required to play “catch as catch can” with regard to eleventh-hour supplemental responses; neither is the opposing side. This is particularly true where a party’s initial discovery responses, such as those served by Defendant, demonstrate a patent disregard of that party’s discovery obligations and have required the opposing party to needlessly incur attorney’s fees in securing obligation with statutory discovery duties.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WITNESS HUDSON’S COMPLIANCE WITH SDT

Motion is granted in full pursuant to CCP 1987.1. Unless the parties make other arrangements for earlier production, within 5 calendar days of personal service on Hudson of the Court’s order on the instant motion, Hudson is to produce all documents requested in the subject business records subpoena, accompanied by the required affidavit. Pursuant to CCP 1987.2, Hudson is sanctioned in the total amount of $1,460.00.

Plaintiff is to serve and lodge a revised proposed order pursuant to CRC 3.1312.
If possible, Plaintiff should bring a prposed order, and copies, to the hearing.

Counsel are reminded that the Court previously ordered them to comply with Local Rule 3.26 and Appendix 3A [formerly Rule 7.12]. Defense counsel may wish to reconsider his approach to discovery in this action.

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and orders and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312. A copy of this ruling is to be attached thereto.