Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01396, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01396    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 12/27/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ushakant Thakkar and Irma Thakkar (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Defendant Nikita Julia Kakhnenko’s (“Defendant”) responses, without objections, to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and to impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $736.65.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an alleged contract dispute between the landlord plaintiffs and the tenant defendant.

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Negligence. Subsequently, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 16, 2023.

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One (the “Motion”).

No opposition has been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

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 responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  The party that fails to timely respond waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product, unless the Court, on motion, determines that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

“A separate statement is not required under the following circumstances: (1) when no response has been provided to the request for discovery[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant. (Brown Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Defendant has failed to respond to the said Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One; nor did Defendant request any extension by the time of the filing of the Motion. (Mot., at p. 4, Brown Decl., ¶ 3.)   

Given the absence of any opposition from the Defendant and the records cited above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objections to the Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a). 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), “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 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....”  Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Here, Defendant did not provide responses to the Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, nor did Defendant file an Opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, based on the above records and authorities, the Court finds that it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions. Furthermore, the Court notes the instant Motion shares significant similarities with a concurrently filed separate motion to compel responses to form interrogatories. Accordingly, it adjusts and determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $ 286.65, calculated based on 0.5 hours of attorney work at an hourly rate of $450, in addition to a $ 61.65 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Respondent’s Responses to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve and file responses to the Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant is ordered to pay $ 286.65 to Plaintiffs within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 12/27/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ushakant Thakkar and Irma Thakkar (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Defendant Nikita Julia Kakhnenko’s (“Defendant”) responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and to impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $736.65.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an alleged contract dispute between the landlord plaintiffs and the tenant defendant.

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Negligence. Subsequently, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 16, 2023.

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”).

No opposition has been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.) 

“A separate statement is not required under the following circumstances: (1) when no response has been provided to the request for discovery[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant. (Brown Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Defendant has failed to respond to the said Form Interrogatories, Set One, nor did Defendant request any extension by the time of the filing of the Motion. (Mot., at p. 4, Brown Decl., ¶ 3.)   

Given the absence of any opposition from the Defendant and the records cited above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objections to the interrogatories, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a). 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “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 interrogatories, 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....”  Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Here, Defendant did not provide responses to the Form Interrogatories nor file an Opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, based on the above records and authorities, the Court finds that it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions. The Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $ 511.65, calculated based on one hour of attorney work at an hourly rate of $450, in addition to a $ 61.65 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve and file responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant is ordered to pay $ 511.65 to Plaintiffs within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.