TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 23
Date: 12/4/2020
Case No: EC 064876 Trial Date: None Set
Case Name: Leyva, et al. v. Baca, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Moving Party: Defendant Karen Baca
Responding Party: Plaintiff Miceala Leyva (No Opposition)
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One
CHRONOLOGY
Date Discovery served: June 25, 2018
Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED
Date Motion served: October 27, 2020 Timely
OPPOSITION:
No opposition.
ANALYSIS:
Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”
In this case, interrogatories have b
Hearing Date
December 04, 2020
Type
Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 23
Date: 12/4/2020
Case No: EC 064876 Trial Date: None Set
Case Name: Leyva, et al. v. Baca, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Moving Party: Defendant Karen Baca
Responding Party: Plaintiff Miceala Leyva (No Opposition)
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One
CHRONOLOGY
Date Discovery served: June 25, 2018
Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED
Date Motion served: October 27, 2020 Timely
OPPOSITION:
No opposition.
ANALYSIS:
Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”
In this case, interrogatories have b