Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV27738, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV27738 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Stepanova vs. Polymath
Development Group, et. al., Case
No. 21STCV27738
Tentative Ruling
re: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Further Discovery; Request for Sanctions
Plaintiff Polina Stepanova
(Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses to discovery issued to Defendants
Esteban Solorio Araya, Angelina Gorbaseva, and Polymath Development Group, Inc.
dba Next Generation Builders. The motions are granted. Defendants are ordered to produce responsive
documents, without objection, within ten (10) days of today’s date.
A party may move for an order
compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the
demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contain
meritless objections. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to
compel further responses to an inspection demand “shall set forth specific
facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection
demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)
“For discovery purposes, information is
relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’
[Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless
privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
[Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales
v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
Plaintiff’s claims in this action
arise from allegations that she was sexually harassed by Defendant Esteban
Araya while employed with Defendant Polymath Development Group, Inc. and ultimately constructively discharged.
Araya and Defendant Angelina Gorbaseva are alleged to be the owner-operators of
Next Gen, and are also husband and wife. (FAC ¶ 16.)
Defendant Esteban Solorio Araya
On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff
served on Defendant Esteban Solorio Araya (Araya) the Form Interrogatories (Set
One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of
Documents (Set One). (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff seeks to compel Araya’s
further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Nos.
42, 43, 45, and 47. Those Requests sought the investigative file for
Plaintiff’s complaint regarding Araya, as well as electronic communications
between Araya and Plaintiff. (Separate Statement.)
Araya’s initial responses were
served on January 28, 2022. Araya did not produce any documents in response to
the requests. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 9.) Araya produced documents on March 11, 2022,
though counsel for Plaintiff states that those documents were also not fully
responsive. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 17.)
For the requests at issue, Araya
responded, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the production and
inspection of the documents that have been located to date, which are presently
in the possession, custody, and/or control of Responding Party, and that
reasonably meet the scope of the Request, as framed and have not been lost,
destroyed [sic] will be included in the production.” (Separate Statement.)
Plaintiff
has shown good cause for compelling Araya’s further responses. The motion is
unopposed. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
Defendant Angelina Gorbaseva
On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff
served on Defendant Angelina Gorbaseva (Gorbaseva) the Form Interrogatories (Set
One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of
Documents (Set One). (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2 [27].)
Plaintiff seeks to compel
Gorbaseva’s further responses to the Requests for Production Nos. 2, 5, 17, and
42-48. The requests seek documents related to the interview process for
Plaintiff conducted by Gorbaseva, Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff’s complaint
regarding Araya, and communications between Plaintiff and Defendants. (Separate
Statement.)
Gorbaseva’s responses were served
on January 11, 2022. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 7 [57].) Gorbaseva did not
produce any documents in response to the Requests for Production. Gorbaseva
made preliminary “General Objections,” including for relevance, ambiguity,
privilege, burden, confidentiality, and privacy. In response to the requests at
issue, Gorbaseva responded, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
the production and inspection of the documents that have been located to date,
which are presently in the possession, custody, and/or control of Responding
Party, and that reasonably meet the scope of the Request, as framed and have
not been lost, destroyed will be included in the production.”
Plaintiff has shown good cause for
compelling Gorbaseva’s further responses. The motion is unopposed. Accordingly,
the motion is granted.
Defendant Polymath Development Group, Inc. dba Next
Generation Builders.
On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff
served on Polymath
Development Group, Inc. dba Next Generation Builders (Next Gen)
the Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents
(Set One). (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3 [37].)
Plaintiff seeks to compel Next
Gen’s further responses to the Requests for Production Nos. 2, 5, 17, and
42-48. The requests are identical to those served to Gorbaseva. (Separate
Statement.)
Next Gen’s responses were served on
January 11, 2022. (Garibyan Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 8 [75].) As with Gorbaseva, Next Gen
made preliminary “General Objections” and did not produce any documents in
response to the Requests for Production. For the requests at issue here, Next
Gen responded, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the production
and inspection of the documents that have been located to date, which are
presently in the possession, custody, and/or control of Responding Party, and
that reasonably meet the scope of the Request, as framed and have not been
lost, destroyed will be included in the production.”
Plaintiff has shown good cause for
compelling Next Gen’s further responses. The motion is unopposed. Accordingly,
the motion is granted.
Sanctions
“The court may impose a monetary
sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or
any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Monetary sanctions are warranted
for each defendant’s failure to respond.
Since the motions were similar to each other as to both the facts and
the law, the Court will order sanctions in the amount of $4,000 ($400/hour x 10
hours) plus filing fees totaling $184.95 ($61.65 x 3) for a total of $4,184.95. Defendants and defendants’ counsel are
ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $4,184.95 within thirty (30) days of today’s
date.