Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV10922, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10922    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendant Morteza Shahabeddin

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Albert Nassir

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Motion).

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            On July 20, 2022, Defendant Morteza Shahabeddin (Defendant) served Plaintiff Albert Nassir (Plaintiff) with Requests for Production, Set One. After numerous extensions, Plaintiff served noncompliant responses on November 7, 2022. In his responses, Plaintiff indicated that the requested documents were forthcoming.

            On November 9, 2022, Defendant emailed Plaintiff inquiring about document production. Defendant alleges he received no response.

            On November 21, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter detailing the discovery issue that needed to be addressed with respect to the Requests for Production, Set One. Defendant alleges that he received no response to the letter.

            On November 29, 2022, Defendant emailed Plaintiff again to follow up about compliant responses and the forthcoming documents. Defendant also advised Plaintiff that he would move forward with a Motion to Compel Further Responses (Motion) if he did not receive compliant responses and responsive documents by the end of that week.

            On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff and his Counsel claimed they would go over the discovery issues and granted Defendant a thirty-day extension to file the Motion.

            On January 20, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion because he had not received compliant responses or responsive documents pursuant to his Requests for Production, Set One.

            On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿ 

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

DISCUSSION 

            A.        Defendant’s Motion is Moot.

            On March 27, 2023, the court found this motion moot in light of Defendant’s verified, code-compliant responses.

            B.        Although Defendant’s Motion is Moot, Sanctions are Warranted.        

            Failure to respond to discovery requests is a misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd’s. (d)-(f).) The propounding party's remedy is to file a motion to compel and seek monetary sanctions pursuant to the appropriate statutory provision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

            If the motion to compel is granted and the moving party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court shall order the party to whom the discovery was directed to pay the propounding party's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, in enforcing discovery “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

             Moreover, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

            Here, despite Defendant’s email on November 9, 2022, Defendant’s meet and confer letter from November 21, Defendant’s follow-up email from November 29, and Defendant waiting until January 20, 2023 to file the Motion, Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with code-compliant responses and responsive documents until March 13, 2023. Plaintiff gave Defendant little reason to believe that further informal efforts would have been fruitful, as Plaintiff claims. (Opp., at p. 7.) True, Defendant’s Motion is moot in light of Plaintiff’s March 13, 2023 production. But under rule 3.1348 of the California Rules of Court, the court may in its discretion award sanctions under the Discovery Act, even if the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion to compel was filed. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.) The court finds Defendant’s request for $6,000 in attorney’s fees reasonable in light of Defendant’s calculations and estimate. (Ludwig Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.) The court also notes that this motion is duplicative of its companion motion as to Plaintiff Kourosh Daneshgar’s discovery responses. Accordingly, the court will only award attorney fees as to this motion, which the Plaintiffs will pay on a joint and several basis.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses moot.

The court will impose $6,000 in monetary sanctions on Plaintiff. Plaintiffs Albert Nassir and Kourosh Daneshgar shall pay on a joint and several basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 21, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendant Morteza Shahabeddin

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Kourosh Daneshgar

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Motion).

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            On July 20, 2022, Defendant Morteza Shahabeddin (Defendant) served Plaintiff Kourosh Daneshgar (Plaintiff) with Requests for Production, Set One. After numerous extensions, Plaintiff served noncompliant responses on November 7, 2022. In his responses, Plaintiff indicated that the requested documents were forthcoming.

            On November 9, 2022, Defendant emailed Plaintiff inquiring about document production. Defendant alleges he received no response.

            On November 21, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter detailing the discovery issue that needed to be addressed with respect to the Requests for Production, Set One. Defendant alleges that he received no response to the letter.

            On November 29, 2022, Defendant emailed Plaintiff again to follow up about compliant responses and the forthcoming documents. Defendant also advised Plaintiff that he would move forward with a Motion to Compel Further Responses (Motion) if he did not receive compliant responses and responsive documents by the end of that week.

            On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff and his Counsel claimed they would go over the discovery issues and granted Defendant a thirty-day extension to file the Motion.

            On January 20, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion because he had not received compliant responses or responsive documents pursuant to his Requests for Production, Set One.

            On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿ 

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

DISCUSSION 

            A.        Defendant’s Motion is Moot.

            On March 27, 2023, the court found this motion moot in light of Defendant’s verified, code-compliant responses.

            B.        Although Defendant’s Motion is Moot, Sanctions are Warranted.        

            Failure to respond to discovery requests is a misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd’s. (d)-(f).) The propounding party's remedy is to file a motion to compel and seek monetary sanctions pursuant to the appropriate statutory provision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

            If the motion to compel is granted and the moving party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court shall order the party to whom the discovery was directed to pay the propounding party's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, in enforcing discovery “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

             Moreover, the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

            Here, despite Defendant’s email on November 9, 2022, Defendant’s meet and confer letter from November 21, Defendant’s follow-up email from November 29, and Defendant waiting until January 20, 2023, to file the Motion, Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with code-compliant responses and responsive documents until March 13, 2023. Plaintiff gave Defendant little reason to believe that further informal efforts would have been fruitful, as Plaintiff claims. (Opp., at p. 7.) True, Defendant’s Motion is moot in light of Plaintiff’s March 13, 2023 production. But under rule 3.1348 of the California Rules of Court, the court may in its discretion award sanctions under the Discovery Act, even if the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion to compel was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.) The court finds Defendant’s request for $6,000 in attorney’s fees reasonable in light of Defendant’s calculations and estimate. (Ludwig Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.) As Defendant’s counsel notes, however, this motion is duplicative of its companion motion concerning Plaintiff Albert Nassir’s discovery responses. Accordingly, the court will only award attorney fees as to that motion, which the Plaintiffs will pay on a joint and several basis.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court finds Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses moot.

The court also finds Plaintiff’s request for sanctions moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 21, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court