Linda Pless v. Dr. Graham Hurvitz, et al

Case Number

23CV02334

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/14/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; 2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; and, 3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Linda Pless: Self-represented

 For Defendant Graham Hurvitz, M.D.: Rodney G. Tomlinson, Adam R. James,

Schmid & Voiles

                                   

RULING

As discussed herein, the hearing on the motions to compel are continued to March 27, 2024, to permit effective service of the motions.

Analysis

Defendant Graham Hurvitz, M.D., served, by mail, his first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on self-represented Plaintiff Linda Pless on November 15, 2023. (James decl. re form interrogatories, ¶ 3 & exhibit B; James decl. re special interrogatories, ¶ 3 & exhibit B; James decl. re requests for production, ¶ 3 & exhibit B.) After granting an extension, no responses were received to this discovery.

On January 10, 2024, Hurvitz filed these three motions to compel responses. As set forth in the proofs of service, the motions were served by electronic service on January 10, 2024. No opposition or other response has been filed to these motions.

Plaintiff Pless is self-represented and has not manifested express consent to electronic service. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3).) Absent express consent, electronic service on a self-represented party is not permissible as an effective manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subds. (a), (c), (h); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b), (c)(3)(B).) Thus, although the underlying discovery was effectively served, the motions here were not. The Court will continue the motions to permit service.