Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV30953, Date: 2025-05-09 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: 23STCV30953 Hearing Date: May 9, 2025 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Urban Packaging
Corporation’s Motions to Compel Defendant Farman Mohammed Qader’s Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation moves to compel defendant Farman Mohammed Qader to provide
further responses to form interrogatories, set one and requests for admission,
set one.
Timeliness
Qader
contends these two motions are untimely.
A motion to compel further discovery responses must be served “within 45
days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified
response, or [on or before] any specific later date to which the propounding
party and the responding party have agreed in writing… .” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c)
[interrogatories], 2033.290, subd. (c) [requests for admission].) Qader’s argument turns on the details of the
parties’ correspondence.
On
September 18, 2024, Qader served verified responses to plaintiff’s form
interrogatories, set one and requests for admission, set one. (Satnick Decls., Ex. 2.) The same day, plaintiff’s counsel replied,
“[T]o streamline our deadlines, would you be willing to stipulate that the deadline
for Plaintiff to move to compel further responses (if necessary) will be 45
days after receipt of the complete set of discovery responses from Defendants? This way, we can avoid tracking separate
deadlines for each set of responses. Please
let me know your thoughts.” (Satnick
Decls., Ex. 4.) Qader’s counsel
responded, “Defendants agree to continue the motion to compel deadlines to 45
days after substantive responses.” (Ibid.)
On
December 4, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Qader’s counsel: “I believe I reviewed all the correspondence. I wanted to briefly outline the past
discovery issues and our current position. Please advise if any of the
following facts are incorrect or inaccurate.
[¶] On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff served written discovery on
Defendants. Several extensions were
granted. On August 19, 2024, Defendants
served objections only. On September 18,
2024, Defendant Qader served substantive responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Admission and Form Interrogatories, Sets One.
On September 18, 2024, Joshua (1) agreed to extend Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses deadline to 45 days after our receipt of a complete
set of substantive responses, and (2) represented ‘Qader’s responses to Special
Interrogatories are nearly done. The responses to Requests for Production will
done thereafter… . I do have some documents
we will be producing.’ To date, no
responses have been received other than the September 18, 2024, Qader responses
to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories, Sets One and
the objections only served August 19, 2024.”
(Satnick Decls., Ex. 4.) “Defendants
will have until Friday, end of day, to provide substantive responses to:” six
sets of discovery, not including form interrogatories, set one and requests for
admission, set one to Qader (which had already been served). (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel further wrote, “If there
is any inaccuracy in the facts set forth in this email, please provide comment
or clarification.” (Ibid.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond to contest
plaintiff’s characterization of the agreement.
Qader argues that on September 18, 2024, his counsel only
agreed to extend the deadline for the other sets of discovery—not these form
interrogatories and requests for admission, to which he had just served
responses. The court rejects this
argument. Plaintiff’s counsel’s email
requesting an extension was clear: he wanted to “streamline our deadlines” so
“we can avoid tracking separate deadlines for each set of responses.” (Satnick Decl., Ex. 4.) The point of the requested extension was to
set a common deadline for all the written discovery. Defendant’s counsel responded, “Defendants
agree to continue the motion to compel deadlines to 45 days after substantive
responses.” (Ibid.) He did not specify that he meant to limit his
agreement to 45 days after each set of substantive responses, rather than a
single deadline for all the responses. In
context, plaintiff’s interpretation is more reasonable.
Qader’s position would mean that, though his counsel
wrote, “Defendants agree to continue the motion to compel deadlines,” he did
not agree to any extension. By default,
the deadline to file a motion is 45 days after “service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c),
2033.290, subd. (c).) Qader’s opposition
contends the deadline was 45 days after he served the responses on September
18, 2024 (Opp., p. 3)—meaning there was no extension or continuance of the
deadline. Stating they “agree[d] to
continue” deadlines should not be interpreted to mean they did not agree with
respect to these discovery requests.
Assuming
Qader’s position is otherwise correct, the court finds he is equitably estopped
from asserting the deadline expired 45 days after September 18, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel detrimentally relied on
his reasonable understanding of the meaning of Qader’s counsel’s agreement. Qader’s counsel had several opportunities to
indicate he meant something different.
He did not do so until after the purported deadline expired. Accepting Qader’s argument would be
inequitable and would prejudice plaintiff.
Form
Interrogatories
Plaintiff
moves to compel Qader to provide further responses to form interrogatories –
general, Nos. 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, and 17.1.
A party propounding interrogatories
may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,”
“[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Generally, after the requesting party moves
to compel further responses, the responding party bears the burden of
justifying its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Qader
responded to the questions with numerous meritless objections. For example, No. 12.2 asks if the responding
party “interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT” giving rise to the
action. Qader made objections including
that the question “is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and
the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” The question
directly asks about interviews regarding the subject matter of the litigation. Qader does not substantiate any of his
objections.
Qader’s objections
to form interrogatories Nos. 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, and 17.1 are overruled.
Qader also
gave incomplete and evasive answers. For
example, No. 15.1 asks several questions about each denial of a material
allegation and each special or affirmative defense alleged. Regarding affirmative defenses, Qader did not
identify any of them, state any supporting facts, or identify any witnesses or
documents pertinent to the defenses. He
answered, “On the advice of its attorneys, Responding Party has also filed a
number of affirmative defenses that may become relevant under a variety of
factual scenarios during the discovery phase of litigation.” Plaintiff is entitled to separate answers for
each affirmative defense. If Qader
asserted any of the affirmative defenses merely to preserve them. without any
factual basis or supporting witnesses or documents, he must state that.
Requests
for Admission
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to requests to admit the genuineness of
documents Nos. 1-7 and requests for admission of the truth of matters specified
Nos. 3, 14, 15, 17-23, 36-38, 42, 43, and 45-88. A party requesting admissions “may move for a
further response to a request for admission when “[a]n answer to a particular
request is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n objection to a particular request is
without merit or too general.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
Qader
made evasive responses and meritless objections to the subject requests for
admission. For example, request to admit
the genuineness of documents No. 1 asked Qader to admit that an attached
invoice was genuine. Qader made
meritless boilerplate objections based on attorney-client privilege, work
product, that it was vague, that it seeks information already available to
plaintiff, is overly broad, seeks disclosure of proprietary information,
invades privacy rights, is irrelevant, and is beyond the scope of discovery. The request asks Qader to admit whether an
attached document is genuine. That is
not vague or overly broad. The document
is a copy of an invoice to defendants.
Plaintiff’s action seeks damages for unpaid invoices. The request is directly relevant.
Substantively, Qader responded, “Responding Party
did not agree to or prepare the subject document. Responding Party denies that the subject invoice
is a valid, accurate or enforceable statement of account, reflection of the
parties’ agreement or representation of David Kazemi’s performance. Discovery and investigation are continuing.” The request asked him to admit whether the
copy of the invoice is genuine, i.e., whether plaintiff actually sent it to
defendants around the time specified on the invoice or whether plaintiff
fabricated it. It did not ask whether
Qader agrees that he owes the money stated on the invoice. His answer is not a valid and complete
response to the request.
Similarly, request for admission No. 70 asked Qader:
“Admit on August 29, 2023, you left PLAINTIFF a voice message stating, ‘David
please understand. It’s not that I’m not
trying. I am doing everything I can. This time I hope it doesn’t take too long.” Qader responded with the same boilerplate
objections above and made other meritless objections such as “[a]ssumes facts
not in evidence” and “compound.”
Qader’s objections to the subject requests are overruled.
Sanctions
In
each motion, plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions against Qader and his
counsel. The court finds that, though
Qader unsuccessfully opposed these motions, he made a colorable argument that the
motions are untimely. Qader acted with
substantial justification. Sanctions are
not warranted under the circumstances.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Farman Mohammed Qader to
serve further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Defendant Qader is ordered to serve
further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s form
interrogatories – general Nos. 12.2, 12.3, 15.1, and 17.1 within 30 days.
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Farman Mohammed Qader
to serve further responses to requests for admission is granted. Defendant Qader is ordered to serve
further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s requests for
admission of genuineness of documents Nos. 1-7 and to plaintiff’s request for
admission of specified matters Nos. 3, 14, 15, 17-23, 36-38, 42, 43, and 45-88 within
30 days.
Plaintiff Urban Packaging
Corporation’s Motions to Compel Defendant Sahar Shayegh’s Further Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and
Requests for Admission
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation moves to compel defendant Sahar Shayegh to provide
further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests
for production, and requests for admission, set one.
A party propounding interrogatories may move to
compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n
exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
A party demanding documents may move to compel
further responses to requests for production if “[a] statement of compliance
with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is
without merit or too general.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
A party requesting
admissions “may move for a further response to a request for admission when
“[a]n answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete” or “[a]n
objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd.
(a).)
Shayegh responded to
all subject discovery requests with meritless objections. Generally, after the requesting party moves
to compel further responses, the responding party bears the burden of
justifying its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
She does not substantiate her objections. Shayegh’s objections to the subject discovery
requests are overruled.
Sanctions
In
each motion, plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Shayegh and her
counsel. Defendant Shayegh is being treated for a
serious illness. (Smith Decl., ¶ 2, Ex.
A.) Her illness has understandably
interfered with her ability to respond to discovery. Sanctions are not just under the
circumstances.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Sahar
Shayegh to serve further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Defendant Shayegh is ordered to serve
further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s form
interrogatories – general Nos. 1.1, 2.1-2.3, 2.5-2.12, 4.1, 4.1, 12.1-12.3,
12.6, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and 17.1 within 30 days.
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Sahar Shayegh to serve
further responses to special interrogatories is granted. Defendant Shayegh is ordered to serve
further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s special
interrogatories Nos. 1-34 within 30 days.
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Sahar Shayegh to serve
further responses to requests for production is granted. Defendant Shayegh is ordered to serve
further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s requests for
production Nos. 1-76 within 30 days.
Shayegh shall produce all responsive documents concurrently with her
verified written responses.
Plaintiff Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel defendant Sahar Shayegh to serve further responses to requests for admission is granted. Defendant Shayegh is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s requests for admission of genuineness of documents Nos. 1-2 and to plaintiff’s request for admission of specified matters Nos. 1-50 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Urban Packaging
Corporation’s Motions to Compel Depositions of Defendants Farman Mohammed Qader
and Sahar Shayegh
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation moves to compel defendants Farman Mohammed Qader and
Sahar Shayegh to testify at deposition and produce the documents requested in
the notices of their depositions. A
party may move to compel the deposition of a party and to compel production of
documents requested in the notice of deposition when the party fails to appear
at deposition or produce documents “without having served a valid objection
under Section 2025.410.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Defendants
Qader and Shayegh failed to appear for their duly noticed depositions and failed
to produce the requested documents. They
did not serve valid objections to the notices of depositions or the document
requests. Defendants do not substantiate
their objections. Rather than arguing on
the merits of the motions, their opposition offers to schedule their
depositions. Defendants’ objections to
the notices of deposition and document requests Nos. 1-23 are overruled.
In
each motion, plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against defendants and their
counsel. If the court grants a motion to compel
deposition, it must impose monetary sanctions 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Defendants acted with substantial
justification. Defendant Shayegh (who is
married to defendant Qader) is being treated for a serious illness. (Smith Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Her illness has understandably interfered
with defendants’ ability to testify at deposition. Sanctions are not just under the
circumstances.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel the deposition of defendant
Farman Mohammed Qader is granted.
Defendant Qader is ordered to appear at deposition and produce all
documents responsive to requests Nos. 1-23 no later than June 20, 2025. By May 16, Qader shall propose three dates
for his deposition between May 19 and June 20.
Plaintiff shall choose one of the three dates Qader proposes.
Plaintiff
Urban Packaging Corporation’s motion to compel the deposition of defendant
Sahar Shayegh is granted.
Defendant Shayegh is ordered to appear at deposition and produce
all documents responsive to requests Nos. 1-23 no later than September 8,
2025. By May 23, Shayegh shall propose
three dates for her deposition between May 26 and September 8. Plaintiff shall choose one of the three dates
Shayegh proposes.