Case Number: PC054195    Hearing Date: January 05, 2015    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

CYNTHIA DENICE DELAPUENTE,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

ARTEM D. PRILUTSKIY, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: PC054195

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DEEMING MOTION TO COMPEL MOOT; DENYING ALL REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #13
January 5, 2015

Plaintiff, Cynthia Denice DeLaPuente filed this action against Defendants, Artem and Dmitry Prilutskiy for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

At this time, Defendants move to compel a further response to supplemental interrogatory 6.7. Defendant also moves to compel supplemental production of documents.

Notably, Plaintiff originally served her responses to the subject discovery in June of 2014. Thereafter, the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts. On 11/18/14, Defendants appeared for an IDC; Plaintiff, however, failed to appear. On 12/02/14, Defendants filed this motion to compel.

On 12/19/14, Plaintiff timely filed opposition to the motions. Notably, the proof of service of the opposition lists the wrong document, and also indicates that the document was served on 11/07/14; this is clearly incorrect. If, at the time of the hearing, Defendants indicate that they did not receive the opposition, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to compel to permit Defendants to respond to the opposition. Plaintiff is requested to ensure proof of service is proper on all documents in the future in connection with this litigation.

Plaintiff, in opposition, contends she served a supplemental response to form interrogatory 6.7 on 7/07/14, which is not mentioned in the separate statement and is not disclosed in the moving papers. Plaintiff also contends she has provided the document at issue, such that the motion is entirely moot.

Notably, any reply to the opposition was due on or before 12/26/14. As of 12/31/14, the Court has not received any reply to the opposition.

It appears the motion is moot, with the exception of sanctions, which are sought by both sides.

The Court is inclined to deny both requests for sanctions. The Court is inclined to deny Defendants’ request for sanctions, as it appears the motion was moot before it was filed. The Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, both because Plaintiff failed to appear at the IDC (it is unclear whether notice of the IDC was properly given; Plaintiff contends it was not), and also because the proof of service on the opposition is improper. The Court finds imposition of sanctions on either party would be unjust under the circumstances.

Dated this 5th day of January, 2015

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court