Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case 20STCV42481 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV42481, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42481 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 motions 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.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misappropriated and diverted Plaintiffs’ funds and/or assets while Defendant Arash worked as a personal executive assistant to Dr. Siman. Defendants also used confidential information to blackmail and extort Plaintiffs for debt forgiveness. Defendant Arash also made defamatory statements about Plaintiffs.

Defendant Ahmadreza Rastegarrazi filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that he was sexually harassed by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Siman, forced to take drugs, be on-call at late hours of the night, and used as a means to move money in and out of Siman’s accounts as part of a tax avoidance scheme. When Cross-Complainant told Siman he was quitting, Siman reacted by violently punching Cross-Complainant in the head and chest. Cross-Complainant was also placed on stress leave, but was harassed and terminated. Cross-Complainant also suffered religious discrimination. Cross-Defendant Siman also committed wage and hour violations. Cross-Complainant suffered retaliation after complaining about the mistreatment. Siman also defamed Cross-Complainant and has threatened him.

Cross-Complainant Reza Rastegarrazi filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Siman emotionally abused him and violated wage and hour laws. Cross-Complainant also alleges that after he complained, he suffered retaliatory harassment and termination.

Plaintiffs Dr. Homan Siman, Clark Ave LLC, and Ultima Healthcare Management, LLC move to compel discovery responses from Defendant Reza Rastegarrazi, and request sanctions.

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman moves to compel further discovery responses from Defendant Korosh Rastegarrazi, and requests sanctions.

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Korosh Rastegarrazi and Reza Rastegarrazi, and requests sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Dr. Homan Siman, Clark Ave LLC, and Ultima Healthcare Management, LLC’s motion to compel responses to requests for admission and accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories is CONTINUED to April 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs are to pay an additional $120 in filing fees and file proof of such payment within 7 days.

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general, special interrogatories, and requests for admission is CONTINUED to April 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to pay an additional $180 in filing fees and file proof of such payment within 7 days.

In light of Defendants’ medical conditions, the hearing on Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman’s motion to compel Defendants’ depositions is CONTINUED to June 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to file a status report by May 26, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Discovery Responses

Plaintiffs Dr. Homan Siman, Clark Ave LLC, and Ultima Healthcare Management, LLC move to compel discovery responses from Defendant Reza Rastegarrazi, and request sanctions.

Plaintiffs improperly combine multiple motions into one motion. In that regard, technically, Plaintiffs should have reserved separate hearing dates for: (1) Plaintiff Ultima Healthcare Management, LLC’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories – general; (2) Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories – general; (3) Plaintiff Clark Ave., LLC’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories – general; (4) Cross-Defendant Ultima Healthcare Management, LLC’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one; (5) Cross-Defendant Dr. Homan Siman’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one; (6) Cross-Defendant Clark Ave., LLC’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one; (7) Plaintiff Clark Ave, LLC’s “motion to compel responses” to request for admissions, set one; (8) Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman’s “motion to compel responses” to request for admissions, set one; and (9) Plaintiff Ultimate Healthcare Management, LLC’s “motion to compel responses” to request for admissions, set one.

Because these are motions to compel original responses against a single Defendant, Reza Rastegarrazi, the Court would permit all Plaintiffs or Cross-Defendants to file a single motion to compel per discovery device, i.e., a combined motion as to form interrogatories, a combined motion as to special interrogatories, and a combined motion as to requests for admission. Yet, Plaintiffs still only filed one combined motion, thereby depriving the Court of $120 in filing fees.

Further, combining multiple motions to compel further responses unfairly cuts in line in front of litigants who follow the Court’s guidelines and reserve a hearing date for a motion to compel per single set of discovery requests. Moreover, it compresses multiple motions which may require extensive attention into a single hearing where the Court’s calendaring policy is designed to relieve the effect of such impacted burdens. This practice must stop.

Because Plaintiffs cut into line, Plaintiffs must now wait to have their motions heard, save for the one motion which would have been properly reserved and paid for. The remainder of the motions are CONTINUED to April 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs are to pay an additional $120 in filing fees and file proof of such payment within 7 days.

The Court will treat the “motion to compel responses” to request for admission as to the motion for which a hearing was properly reserved and paid for. The Court will address that motion today.

The motion to compel Defendant Reza Rastegarrazi to provide substantive responses to requests for admission, set one is DENIED. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 does not provide for a motion to compel responses to requests for admission. The only authorized motion is for “an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. . .” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280(b).) Plaintiffs did not bring such a motion.

As such, the motion to compel responses to requests for admission and accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.

If Defendant Reza Rastegarrazi wishes to have this Court make any orders based upon his medical condition (see Declaration of Behrouz Shafie), he may bring an appropriate motion.

Motion To Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman moves to compel further discovery responses from Defendant Korosh Rastegarrazi, and requests sanctions.

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman improperly combined multiple motions into one motion. In that regard, Plaintiff should have reserved separate hearing dates for: (1) a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general, set one; (2) a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one; (3) a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one; and (4) a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, set one. Yet, Plaintiff only filed one combined motion, thereby depriving the Court of $180 in filing fees.

Because Plaintiff cut into line, Plaintiff must now wait to have his motions heard, save for the one motion which would have been properly reserved and paid for. The remainder of the motions are CONTINUED to April 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to pay an additional $180 in filing fees and file proof of such payment within 7 days.

The Court will treat the motion to compel further responses to requests for production as to the motion for which a hearing was properly reserved and paid for. The Court will address that motion today.

Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.310 provides in pertinent part:

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given 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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(a) – (c).)

Here, Defendant Korosh Rastegarrazi served verified responses to requests for production of documents on July 1, 2022. (Farivar Decl., ¶ 5.) The 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel, with an additional 5 days for service of responses by mail (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1013(a)), expired on Monday August 22, 2022.

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that, on August 23, 2022, he met and conferred telephonically about the deficiencies in the response. (Jung Decl., ¶ 3.) However, by that time, the deadline had already expired, and Plaintiff waived his right to compel further responses. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that the parties had agreed in writing, before the deadline expired, to extend the time for Plaintiff to bring a motion to compel. As such, the motion is untimely and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do anything other than deny this motion.

Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.310(c) provides:

Nothing in this section permits the parties to revive a right to bring a motion to compel further responses which has been deemed waived after the deadline has already passed. A court does not have jurisdiction to compel further responses if they are filed after the time limit set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure. See the following cases decided under the previous versions of the Code of Civil Procedure:

If answers or objections are on file, and the propounding party deems that further response is required, he must file a motion to compel further answers within 30 days after the date of service of answers or objections, unless there is a stipulation extending time, or the court, on motion and notice, and for good cause shown, enlarges the time. Otherwise, the party is deemed to have waived the right to compel further answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030, subd. (a).)

n18 When answers are served by mail, the time is extended by Civil Code section 1013. (See California Accounts, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 483 [123 Cal.Rptr. 304].)

This statute is mandatory and a court may not entertain a belated motion to compel. (Citation omitted).

(Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788 [bold emphasis added].)

The key statutory provision is Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, which provides in pertinent part: "(a) . . . . If the party who has submitted the interrogatories deems that further response is required, he may move the court for an order requiring further response. Such motion must be upon notice given [*646] within 30 days from date of service of the answers or objections unless the court, on motion and notice, and for good cause shown, enlarges that time. Otherwise, the party submitting the interrogatories shall be deemed to have waived the right to compel answer pursuant to this section." (Italics added.)

The time limitation thus established is mandatory and if it is not met the court's order is "in excess of its jurisdiction." (Citations omitted.)

(Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal App.3d 637, 645-46 [bold emphasis added].)

“We do not believe the 45-day limitation is ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental sense, but is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [bold emphasis added].) See also Weil and Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group, § 8:1491: “The 45-day time limit is mandatory and ‘jurisdictional’ (court has no authority to grant a late motion). . . .”)

Although the foregoing authorities were decided under the prior versions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Karl dealt with interrogatories, not requests for production, the rationale is equally applicable to the current CCP and provision re: motions to compel further responses to requests for admission and requests for production.

Given the symmetry of sections 2030, subdivision (l) and 2031, subdivision (l), we conclude that [*1410] the time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers to interrogatories.

(Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-10.)

These cases have not been overruled.

Moreover, the filing of the joint statement for the IDC on October 28, 2022 did not revive an already-expired motion to compel deadline.

As such, the motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.

Motion To Compel Depositions

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

Behrouz Shafie

No. 1: OVERRULED. Entire declaration is not objectionable.

No. 2: OVERRULED. Sufficient foundation/personal knowledge; relevant; goes to weight.

No. 3: OVERRULED. Authenticating the attached document.

No. 4: OVERRULED. Sufficient foundation/personal knowledge; authenticating the attached document.

No. 5: SUSTAINED. Irrelevant.

No. 6: SUSTAINED. Irrelevant.

Discussion

Plaintiff Dr. Homan Siman moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Korosh Rastegarrazi and Reza Rastegarrazi, and requests sanctions.

The Court will permit this motion to compel two depositions to be combined into one.

Defendants have submitted doctor’s notes indicating that they should not be “going to court” and should be excused from “attendance at court.” (See Behrouz Shafie, ¶¶ 3-5 Exh. B.)

In light of Defendants’ purported medical conditions, the hearing on the motion to compel Defendants’ depositions is CONTINUED to June 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to file a status report by May 26, 2023. Plaintiff may wish to hire a private investigator to disprove Defendants’ claims that they are unable to sit for their depositions. Or, if Defendants do not wish to limit their public activities, they can simply appear for their depositions.

On the other hand, Defendants are advised to bring a motion for a protective order or other suitable motion to formally stay discovery or excuse their inability to sit for their depositions. Otherwise, they remain at risk for the imposition of issue, evidentiary and/or terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. (Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.)