Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00074, Date: 2024-12-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00074 Hearing Date: December 24, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 12/24/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00074
Trial Date: 04/01/2025
Case Name: VAHIK ANDRIAS vs. KUSHAGRAM, INC., et al.
TENTATIVE
RULING – COMPEL VERIFICATIONS TO DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Moving Party: Plaintiff Vahik Andrias
Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant Kushagram,
Inc.
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Declaration; Proof of Service
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: No reply
Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Yes
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Plaintiff, Vahik
Andrias, moves this Court for an order compelling Defendant Kushagram, Inc., to
provide code-compliant verifications with respect to its responses to
Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories, first set of special
interrogatories, first set of requests for admissions, and first set of
requests for inspection and production of documents. These were propounded by Plaintiff
and electronically served on July 26, 2023. On September 15, 2024, Defendant
served separate responses to the discovery requests. On April 2, 2024,
Plaintiff claims that Defendant provided deficient verifications signed by
Surya Insurance Company. That same day, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter
to Defendant regarding the deficiencies of its verifications. On April 15,
2024, April 26, 2024, April 30, 2024, and September 3, 2024, Plaintiff made
further attempts to meet and confer with Defendant regarding the verifications.
Plaintiff has also requested sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of
record in the amount of $1,635.00.
This motion is
made on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide code-compliant
verifications with its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests pursuant to
CCP §§ 2030.250(a), 2015.5, and 2030.90.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Vahik Andrias, filed a Complaint on 01/23/2023 against
Defendants, Kushagram, Inc., and Ernesto Fernando Ascencio. Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges two causes of action – (1) Motor Vehicle negligence and (2)
General Negligence. Plaintiff alleges that while he was driving his vehicle,
Defendant Ernesto Fernando Ascencio, while in the course of his employment for
Defendant Kushagram, Inc., was driving his vehicle in a negligent and unsafe
manner, which caused Defendant’s vehicle to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff alleges that he has sustained severe bodily injuries as a result of
the collision.
TENTATIVE
RULING
The motion is
granted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,215.00.
ANALYSIS
Legan
Standard – Verification of Responses
When a party provides discovery responses containing anything other
than objections, the party must sign the responses under oath. (CCP § 2030.250(a)
[“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response
under oath unless the response contains only objections.”].) Under oath means
that the party must swear that the facts contained in the response are true
“under penalty of perjury.” (CCP § 2015.5.)
When a party fails to attest
to the truth of the facts contained in a discovery response under oath, the
Court must treat the party as having failed to provide any response whatsoever
to the discovery demands. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651 [lack of verifications to mixed responses containing
both objections and factual responses must be challenged by a motion to compel,
and not by a motion to compel further responses].)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion
to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding
party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a
“meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Though not required, Plaintiff has provided a
declaration from his attorney demonstrating the attempts that his attorney made
to meet and confer.
Plaintiff
seeks an order compelling verified responses pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290
(interrogatories), 2031.300 (inspection of documents), and 2033.290 (requests
for admissions).
Discussion
On
July 26, 2023, Plaintiff propounded the form interrogatories, special
interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for
admissions on Defendant. (Gharabighi Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) On September 15, 2023,
Defendant served separate responses to the discovery requests. (Gharabighi
Decl., ¶ 6.) On April 2, 2024, Defendant provided deficient verifications
signed by Surya Insurance Company. (Gharabighi Decl., ¶ 7.) That same day,
Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant regarding the deficiency
of the verifications. (Gharabighi Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s attorney attempted
to meet and confer several more times, on April 15, 2024, April 26, 2024, April
30, 2024, and September 3, 2024, but Defendant has not provided verifications.
(Gharabighi Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant must provide verifications for its discovery
responses.
Plaintiff
is ordered to pay the appropriate filing fees to the Clerk forthwith.
Here,
Defendant has never served code-compliant verifications to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. The verifications served on April 2, 2024, were not code compliant.
It is unclear from the verifications provided on April 2 whether the individual
purporting to verify the responses was an officer or agent of Defendant (see
CCP § 2030.250). (Gharabighi Decl., Exs. 9-10.)
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel verifications for the form interrogatories, special
interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions is
GRANTED. Defendant is to provide code-compliant verifications within 10 days
following the hearing of this motion.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
moves for sanctions in the sum of $1,635.00 against Defendant and its attorney
of record, jointly and severally.
CCP § 2023.030
authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct
that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery,
evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are
“misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).)
“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).)
Plaintiff’s counsel, Karin Gharabighi, states she
spent 2.8 hours drafting the motion, anticipates 1.5 hours reviewing opposition
and drafting a reply, anticipates 0.5 hours attending the hearing on this
motion, and she incurred $60.00 to file this motion. (Gharabighi Decl., ¶¶ 10, 12.)
Counsel also stated that her billing rate was $350.00 per hour. (Gharabighi
Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s total requested fees are $1,635.00 (4.8 hours at
$350/hour plus the $60 filing fee).
No opposition or reply has been filed, so Plaintiff’s
counsel did not incur the anticipated 1.5 hours to review the opposition or
draft a reply. That leaves 2.8 hours for preparing the motion and the
anticipated 0.5 hours for attending the hearing. Accordingly, 3.3 hours at
$350/hour plus the $60.00 filing fee means that the total amount awarded for
sanctions should be $1,215.00.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted in the
amount of $1,215.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record.
Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record are ordered to pay $1,215.00 to
Plaintiff’s attorney within 20 days of the hearing on this motion.