Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV33867, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV33867    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Discovery and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Nile Niami; Motion Thereof to Compel Discovery and Request For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Nile Niami.

In this action, INFERNO CALIFORNIA, INC. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against NILE NIAMI (“Defendant Niami”) and CONTEMPORARY VISTA, LLC, for fraud and breach of contract, alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff to make a loan on a real property investment and they failed to pay back a loan secured by a Gulfstream corporate jet.

Plaintiff brings two motions to compel Defendant Niami’s deposition attendance and response to document requests. The motions have different reservation numbers but otherwise appear to be duplicative of one another. The Court will refer to Plaintiff’s filing as a motion (singular) for purposes of this tentative because Plaintiff’s filing of two duplicative motions appears to be a mistake.

The motion is based on Defendant Niami’s failures to attend a properly noticed deposition and to respond to a properly served document request. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the sum of $7,247.00 as to each motion.

A party may bring a motion to compel deposition attendance after service of a deposition notice where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.  Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a). 

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06; Code of Civ. Proc.,  § 2031.300. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58. “‘[S]ubstantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.  “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ”  Ibid., at p. 1435.

Addressing the matters at hand, the Court finds that the motions sufficiently show that Defendant Niami failed to attend noticed depositions and to respond to document requests. Further, no opposition has been filed to show substantial justification in avoidance of sanctions. Therefore, the motion is granted. The Court will sign and file the proposed order lodged by Plaintiff.