Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV34110, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV34110 Hearing Date: March 8, 2023 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue. Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776. If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
This is an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant Alexander was allegedly negligent in causing the accident. Defendant Tokasey allegedly defamed Plaintiffs by stating that they were committing insurance fraud and had staged the accident with Defendant Alexander.
Defendant Matt Tokasey moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiffs Artur Navasardyan and Sergey Soghomonyan for failure to obey the Court’s September 1, 2022 order.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Matt Tokasey’s motions for sanctions against Plaintiff Artur Navasardyan and Plaintiff Navasardyan, as set forth at Pages 6:1 – 7:21 of Defendant’s memoranda of points and authorities, are GRANTED.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiff Artur Navasardyan
Discussion
Defendant Matt Tokasey moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff Artur Navasardyan for failure to obey the Court’s September 1, 2022 order by failing to provide further responses to Tokasey’s Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).
Regarding a failure to obey an order compelling further responses to requests for admission, CCP § 2033.290(e) provides as follows:
(e) If a party
then fails to obey an order compelling further response to requests for
admission, the court may order that the matters involved in the requests be
deemed admitted. In lieu of, or in addition to, this order, the court may
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010).
(Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.290(e).)
Regarding a failure to obey an order compelling further
responses to interrogatories, CCP § 2030.300(e) provides as follows:
(e) If a party
then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the
court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue
sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that
sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010).
(Civ.
Proc. Code § 2030.300(e).)
On September 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff Artur
Navasardyan to serve further responses to special interrogatories (set one),
form interrogatories (set one), requests for production (set one) and requests
for admission (set one) within 20 days of the order. (Clow Decl., Exh. E.) However, Plaintiff did not serve any
further response to special interrogatories (set one), form interrogatories
(set one), and requests for admission (set one). (Clow Decl., ¶ 9.)
The Court considered Plaintiffs’ argument that the motions to
compel were untimely because they were filed beyond the 45 day motion. The
Court rejected the argument and found that the motions should not be denied for
untimeliness. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court did not have jurisdiction to
issue the orders to compel further responses because they were filed beyond the
45-day deadline is an argument that the Court committed legal error, the remedy
for which lies with the Court of appeal. The Court does not find to be
persuasive that its September 1, 2022 is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Nor does Plaintiff offer any new or different facts, circumstances
or law which could not have been presented at the hearings on the motion to compel
further responses.
The court properly denied Fettig's motion for reconsideration. Such a motion requires
new facts, circumstances, or law that, despite reasonable diligence, could not
have accompanied the original motion. (Citation omitted].)
(Fettig v. Hilton Garden Inns Mgmt. LLC (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 264, 269.)
As noted, Plaintiff is claiming the Court committed an error
of law, but a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to correct this. (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th
765, 770-71.)
Plaintiff does not offer any reason why Defendant’s request for
issue and evidence sanctions should be denied. The Court has considered the
requests issue and evidentiary sanctions as set forth at Pages 6:1 – 7:21 of Defendant’s
memorandum of points and authorities and finds that the requested sanctions
should be imposed pursuant to CCP § 2033.290(e) and § 2030.300(e).
[Former CCP] Section 2034, subdivision
(b)(2) allows the trial court to impose one of several specific sanctions for
failure to obey a discovery order. The court has broad discretion in imposing
discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious or
whimsical action. (Citation omitted.) The sanction imposed "should be
appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to
protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. Where a
motion to compel has previously been granted, the sanction should not operate
in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than
he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been
completely favorable to his cause." (Citation omitted.)
Where a party has refused to supply information relevant to a particular claim,
an order precluding that claim is an appropriate sanction. (Citations omitted.)
Here the court imposed an issue-preclusion sanction against Sauer for failure
to produce his personal financial records. As in Caryl Richards, supra, this
sanction put the demanding party in the position in which it would have been
had that discovery been entirely favorable, i.e., the documents would have
shown Sauer suffered no economic loss. In choosing this sanction, the court was
attempting to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld
discovery. (Citation omitted.)
(Sauer v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 213, 228-29.)
As such, the motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff Artur Navasardyan as set forth at Pages 6:1 – 7:21 of Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities is GRANTED.
Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiff Sergey Soghomonyan
Defendant Matt Tokasey moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff Sergey Soghomonyan for failure to obey the Court’s September 1, 2022 order by failing to provide further responses to Tokasey’s Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).
For the reasons set forth above re:
the motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Navasardyan, the motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions
against Plaintiff Sergey Soghomnyan as set forth at Pages 6:1 – 7:21 of Defendant’s memorandum of points and
authorities is GRANTED.