Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00053154-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Status Conference (Civil) 37-2021-00053154-CU-BC-NC FATTAHI VS HOGAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Status Report, 09/29/2023

The eight discovery motions brought by defendant Sean Hogan (Defendant) were previously GRANTED. (See ROA 55.) At the last hearing on this matter, counsel for plaintiffs Mirmahshad Fattahi and Maryam Khazaeli (collectively, Plaintiffs) indicated that Mr. Fattahi's father was gravely ill and out of the country – preventing Mr. Fattahi from timely responding to discovery. Balancing the need to comply with the discovery code against the realities of having an ill family member out of the country, this Court granted the motions to compel (making clear that Plaintiffs were now court-ordered to comply with the discovery code and produce responses), but continued the hearing on those original eight motions to today's date for consideration of the issue of monetary sanctions after a time at which Plaintiff's counsel would have time to confer with his client. This Court indicated that the issuance of monetary sanctions would be considered in light of that compliance – i.e. though the discovery code generally makes monetary sanctions mandatory against the party who loses a motion to compel, the existence of an ill family member and overseas travel as a result might warrant the kind of 'other circumstance' that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Both parties were additionally given deadlines to file Status Reports apprising the Court of further meet and confer efforts. Defendant filed a timely Status Report. Plaintiffs did not.

At the last hearing on this matter, Plaintiffs' counsel admitted that the objections-only responses to the discovery at issue were filed for the purpose of 'preserving deadlines.' It now appears to the Court that Plaintiffs have continued to fail to timely take any action with regard to the discovery at issue. As such, the Court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions in the full amount of $5,482.50.

The Court notes that Defendant has made an additional request in his Status Report specifically seeking evidentiary sanctions. As that particular sanction was not requested in the initial moving papers, and as the Status Report was not filed with sufficient time to comply with normal noticed motion procedure for putting an additional type of sanction at issue, the Court declines to grant that request at this time.

However, the declining to grant such request is done without prejudice. Moreover, it is this Court's standard procedure to, via the in limine motion procedure and/or objections at trial, bar evidence that would have been responsive to discovery requests and that was not produced during the discovery phase of litigation. As such, though the technical request for evidentiary sanctions is not being granted, that same result will be what is effectively applied at trial.

Plaintiff is directed to submit an updated proposed order consistent with this ruling.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3008065 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FATTAHI VS HOGAN [IMAGED]  37-2021-00053154-CU-BC-NC Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3008065