Wajdi Traish vs Melissa Drake MD Inc et al
Wajdi Traish vs Melissa Drake MD Inc et al
Case Number
22CV04015
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 12/20/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motions to Compel
Tentative Ruling
On April 10, 2024, a Substitution of Attorneys form was filed whereby plaintiff’s former counsel substituted out of the action on his behalf, and plaintiff substituted in to represent himself. He has continued to represent himself in this action, through his appearance via Zoom for hearings that have been scheduled in the action. He has not filed any documents in the action since he began representing himself.
On October 9, 2024, defendants served Special Interrogatories (Set 4) and Requests for Production (Set 4) on plaintiff by electronic service. Upon receiving no responses, defendant on November 15, 2024, filed motions to compel responses to the discovery, without objections, and again served them upon plaintiff by electronic service.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 (c), an unrepresented (i.e., self-represented) party may only be electronically served with documents in a case if the unrepresented party has provided consent to receive electronic service in the manner set forth in the statute. Section 1010.6(c)(3) provides that “[E]xpress consent to electronic service may be given by either of the following: (i) Serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court. (ii) Manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent.”
Under this authority, once plaintiff began representing himself, he could no longer be electronically served with any documents in this case unless he provided consent to such electronic service, in the manner set forth in Section 1010.6(c)(3). He has not done so. As a result, defendants’ electronic service upon plaintiff with the discovery, and the motions to compel responses, was contrary to law and invalid. Since neither the discovery nor the motions to compel were validly served upon plaintiff, the motions to compel must be denied.