Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV01875, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV01875    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Armando J. Berriz’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition

Defendant Armando J. Berriz moves to compel production of documents requested at the deposition of Jacob Emrani.  If a deponent “without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails … to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

After defendant filed this motion, plaintiff The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani produced the requested documents.  Berriz still seeks $3,085 in monetary sanctions against plaintiff.  “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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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(a).)

Meet and Confer

            Plaintiff The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani argues Berriz did not adequately meet and confer before filing this motion.  Before moving to compel further discovery responses, a party must make a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  “The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the ‘reasonable and good faith attempt’ standard depends upon the circumstances.”  (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

Berriz made an adequate attempt to informally resolve this dispute.  At Emrani’s deposition on July 11, 2023, he testified that his firm’s claim management system may have notes relevant to the subject of this lawsuit.  (Suarez Decl., Ex. C, Emrani Depo., 57:16-22.)  On the record, Berriz’s counsel and Emrani’s counsel discussed their positions on whether those notes should have been produced.  (Id., 57:23-60:5.)  Both Emrani and his counsel stated they would produce the records.  (Id., 59:19-60:1.) 

On July 21, Berriz’s counsel sent an email stating, “As a follow-up to my earlier email, I have not seen any response from you regarding your document production. Mr. Emrani testified that he did not search for any documents and identified documents regarding Karen Edmonson that were not produced.”  (Suarez Decl., Ex. A, p. 4.)  The email thread includes no response about the documents until after Berriz filed this motion on August 15.  (Id. pp. 1-3.)  Berriz made a sufficient effort to informally resolve this dispute.  Filing the motion on August 15 was not premature. 

Document Requests

Plaintiff argues these documents do not respond to any of the categories of documents requested in the notice of Emrani’s deposition.  The notice of deposition includes request No. 2: “All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO Karen Edmonson” and No. 3 “All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all services performed my YOU for Karen Edmonson.”  Claim management system notes about plaintiff’s representation of Karen Edmonson fall within both these categories. 

Sanctions

            The court will impose $3,085 in sanctions against plaintiff The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, APC and plaintiff’s counsel Rodrigo Suarez.  “If a motion” to compel deposition or production of requested documents “is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction … in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).)  Plaintiff and its counsel did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.

Disposition

            Defendant Armando J. Berriz’s motion to compel production of documents requested at deposition is moot as to an order compelling production.  Defendant Armando J. Berriz’s motion is granted as to monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, APC, and plaintiff’s counsel Rodrigo Suarez are ordered to pay defendant Armando J. Berriz $3,085 in sanctions within 20 days.  Plaintiff and counsel Suarez are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.