Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21GDCV01132, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV01132 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 10/4/2022 – 10:00am
Case No. 21GDCV01132
Trial Date: 11/07/2022
Case Name: MICHAEL SAHAKIAN, et al. v. ELENA SHAKHPAZYAN, et al.
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES -Requests for Production
Procedural
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): The instant motion was served on September
13, 2022. Typically, this motion would not be timely; however, on September 19,
2022, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex-parte applications to advance the
hearing from 12/02/2022 to 10/04/2022.
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): yes
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Plaintiffs
move in one Motion, for an order compelling responses to Plaintiffs’ Request
for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Defendant Haik Davtian, and make
the same Motion as to Defendant Elena Shakhpazyan.
This
motion is made pursuant to CCP §2031.300 and Plaintiffs request the Court award
sanctions according to 2031.300(c)
BACKGROUND
On July 5th, Plaintiffs served Request for
Production of Documents, Set One, to Defendant Haik Davtian. (Decl. Flores
¶4-5, Ex. 3).
To
date, no responses have been received by Plaintiffs.
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES,
INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within
30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of
the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response
on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the
party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or
unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court
has extended the time for response. (CCP §2031.260(a).)
If
a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand
may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (CCP §2031.300(b).)
If
a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection
to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (CCP
§2031.300(a).)
Unlike
a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not
subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to
demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer”
requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 citing Weil and Brown,
Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006)
¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30
(Weil & Brown).)
ANALYSIS
No
responses were served by either Defendant (Decl. Flores ¶2-6). However, RPD Set
One was served on July 5, 2022, upon Defendant Elena Shakhpazyan, and not Haik
Davtian. [See Exhibit 3, July 5, 2022, proof of service in the motion to compel
responses to RPD, Set One, as to Haik Davtian. Further in this Exhibit 3,
“Responding Party” is titled Elena Shakhpazyan and not Haik Davtian.] Since no
responses have been received, over 30 days has passed at the time of filling of
the instant motion. (See Decl. Flores ¶2-6.)
TENTATIVE
RULING
The
Motion to Compel is granted as to Defendant Shakhpazyan but denied as to
Defendant Davtian. Shakhpazyan is to
serve upon Plaintiffs all responsive documents, with a response under oath, and
without objections, within 5 days hereof.
Sanctions
Except
as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response
to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. (CCP
§2031.300(c).)
Plaintiffs’
counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $700.00 from each Defendant.
Plaintiffs’ counsel bases this on an hourly rate of $350 hour. Further, this
request is based on one hour to draft the instant motion, and counsel
anticipating incurring another half hour to review any opposition and file a
reply brief and appear at the hearing on the motion. However, no
Reply brief has been necessary as no Opposition has been filed. On the Shakhpazyan
motion, the caption requests sanctions and the notice of the motion page
requests sanctions. No sanctions
are granted vs. Davtian. The Court
awards reasonable sanctions of $400.00 to Plaintiffs against Defendant
Shakhpazyan. The Court STAYS these
sanctions until Final Judgment is rendered in this case.