Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV07228, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV07228    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff Bagrat Ogannes filed a motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (RFPs), Set One, which Ogannes served on Defendant Harutiun Kassakhian (Kassakhian) on May 23, 2024 and to which Kassakhian provided unverified responses on June 27, 2024. Ogannes requests $4,762.50 in monetary sanctions from Kassakhian and his counsel of record.

On September 18, 2024, Kassakhian filed an opposition, and requested $4,500.00 in monetary sanctions against Ogannes and his counsel of record.

On September 23, 2024, Ogannes filed a reply.

II. Motion

A.    Meet and Confer

Before bringing a motion to compel further responses to any discovery request, the moving party is required to make efforts to meet and confer in good faith and must submit a declaration attesting to those efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to¿meet and confer in good faith.¿(See¿Obregon v. Superior Court¿(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.)¿

Ogannes mailed and emailed a Meet and Confer letter to Kassakhian on July 6, 2024 (Mot., Ex. 3, Bhola Decl. ¶ 5.) The letter states: “Please provide full and complete verified responses within seven days of the date of this letter, or I will have no choice but to seek an informal discovery conference and/or file a motion to compel with a request for monetary sanctions.” (Mot., Ex. 3.) Kassakhian did not respond to the letter. (Bhola Decl. ¶ 6.)

Ogannes’ counsel did not attempt to arrange a meeting between the parties to confer about the discovery issues, but rather warned he would seek court intervention if Kassakhian does not provide further responses within the week. It is questionable whether this constitutes a good faith effort at informal resolution. However, a discovery motion need not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to¿meet and confer in good faith.¿(See¿Obregon v. Superior Court¿(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Considering Kassakhian did not respond to the letter, the motion will not be denied on this ground.

B.    Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) 

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)). 

The Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits of discovery motions even after requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)

C.    Analysis

Ogannes asserts that the unverified discovery responses received on June 27, 2024, were inadequate. Further, despite the stated agreement to comply in some responses, no documents were produced.  (Mot. p. 4., Ex. 2.)

In opposition, Kassakhian states that all the requested documents have now been produced, along with an updated verification. (Opp., Cooper Decl. ¶ 14.)

Ogannes replies that Kassakhian dropped a box of documents off at Ogannes’s counsel’s office on September 18, 2024, but the documents were disorganized and there were no separate written responses. (Reply pp. 4-5.)

Documents that are produced in response to a demand for inspection must be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 subd. (a).) Accordingly, Kassakhian is ordered to provide responses that comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a).

D.    Requests for Sanctions

Except in certain circumstances involving electronic stored information, the court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).) 

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.)

Ogannes requests sanctions for the motion to compel further responses to RFP, Set One against Defendant, Kassakhian and his counsel, Steven J. Cooper, in the total amount of $4,762.50 based upon counsel’s rate of $495.00/hour for 9.5 total hours of work as follows: (1) 4.5 hours to prepare the motion and separate statement, (2) 2.5 hours to prepare a reply, (3) 2.5 hours to attend the hearing remotely, and (4) filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Bola Decl. ¶ 8.)

The hours requested are mostly reasonable, but the Court will deduct 1.5 hours from the time to attend the hearing remotely, as it is unlikely this matter will take more than one hour of counsel’s time. Thus, the sanctions are reduced by 1.5 x 495 = $742.50.

Thus, Ogannes’s request for sanctions is granted in the reduced total amount of $4020 (8 hours at $495/hr. plus $60 filing fee.) 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Barat Ogannes Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant Harutiun Kassakhian is ordered to provide code compliant responses within 14 days.   

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $4,020.00 against Defendant Harutiun Kassakhian and his counsel, Steven J. Cooper, jointly and severally. Payment is due within 30 days.