Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03083, Date: 2024-10-02 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: 23CHCV03083    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

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

Motion filed: 7/18/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Roubik Keshesh

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Garnik Sarian

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Garnik Sarian to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Nos. 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant Garnik Sarian and his attorney of record in the amount of $3,400.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained as a result of an alleged dog bite incident that occurred on or about October 14, 2021.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff Roubik Keshesh (“Plaintiff” or “Keshesh”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Garnik Sarian (“Sarian”), Jaklin Simonian (“Simonian”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 60, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Premises Liability, (2) General Negligence, (3) Statutory Strict Liability pursuant to Civil Code Section 3342(a). Subsequently, on December 8, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Defendant Sarian filed his Opposition on September 19, 2024, and Plaintiff replied on September 24, 2024.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

The 45-day deadline “is ‘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.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Breanna K. Martinez (“Martinez”), attests that on May 20, 2024, Defendant served, via email, his responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. “2.”) This service established the 45-day deadline as July 6, 2024. On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff granted Sarian an extension to provide further responses by July 9, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9.) In exchange, Defendant Sarian respond on June 26, 2024, granting Plaintiff an extension to file motions to compel by July 18, 2024. (Ibid.)

By contrast, Defendant Sarian contends that he never agreed to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel with respect to the subject form interrogatories, arguing that the instant Motion is untimely. (Avakian Decl. ¶ 7, Opp’n. at p. 3.)

In responses, Plaintiff’s counsel, Christienne M. Papa (“Papa”), presents an email from Defendant Sarian’s counsel, Armen Avakian (“Avakian”), dated June 26, 2024. (Papa Decl. Ex. “9.”) The email indicates that Avakian emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, Martinez, on June 26, 2024, stating “I asked for more time so you offered to give until July 9 to provide the further responses and responses to your special rogs and RFPDSs, set two, in exchange for an extension to file motion to compel regarding my responses to set one through July 23.... If I get 7 days, you get 7 days. So July 9 for me and July 18 for you. Deal?” (Papa Decl. Ex. “9.”) (Underlines added.) On the same day, Martinez replied to the email, stating, “Yes, that’s fine.” (Ibid.)

Significantly, the “July 9, 2024” extended deadline for Sarian’s supplemental responses was offered in Martinez’s June 25, 2024, email, which states, “I can give you until July 9, 2024 to provide further responses to both sets of discovery, so long as our motion to compel deadline for Form Interrogatories, ... is similarly extended[.]” (Papa Decl. Ex. “9.”) (Underlines added.)

The Court finds that it is evident an extension for Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses was negotiated and granted in exchange for “7 extra days” “mutual extension” for Defendant’s supplemental responses.

Here, the Motion was filed on July 18, 2028, meeting the extended deadline agreed-upon by the parties in writing. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s contention that the Motion should fail due to untimeliness unpersuasive.

Therefore, the Court determines that the Motion is timely. 

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Martinez Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: ... (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories[.]” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses on the grounds that Defendant’s initial responses to the first set of Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) are evasive, nonresponsive, and incomplete.

As to FROGs Nos. 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, and 16.6, Defendant Sarian provided uniformed responses, stating, “This interrogatory is premature because Responding Party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and investigation regarding the nature or extent of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Responding Party reserves the right to revise, modify, amend or otherwise supplement this response at a later date.” (See generally, Pl.’s Separate Statement.)

The Court notes that a party may use interrogatories to request the identity and location of those with knowledge of discoverable matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010.) To show an interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information “is not the burden of [the party propounding interrogatories]. As a litigant, it is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,.541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

Here, Sarian’s generic objections based on relevance, vagueness, and overbreadth are inconsistent with the fact that the Judicial Council of California drafted the form interrogatories, and there is a presumption that FROGs are valid.

Furthermore, Sarian’s argument that the FROGs are premature is not well-founded. The action commenced since October 12, 2023, and Sarian first appeared in the case on December 8, 2023. Plaintiff provided his responses to Defendant’s discovery on February 27, 2024. (Martinez Decl. Ex. “3.”) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Sarian had sufficient information and reasonable opportunities to conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

Accordingly, the Court finds Sarian’s generic objections, including that discovery was “premature,” inapplicable.

As to FROGs Nos. 16.9 and 16.10, Sarian’s responses cite mere objections, stating “Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the term “incident” is not defined such that there can be no meaningful response without speculation, it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation, improperly seeks information and documentation protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and violates Evidence Code §769.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at pp. 8-9.)

Established case law holds that a responding party may object to an interrogatory that seeks privileged information by clearly stating the objection and the particular privilege invoked. But the existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged. (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12.) (Underlines added.) Interrogatories may be used to discover the existence of documents in the other party's possession. If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

            Here, the Court finds FROGs Nos. 16.9 and 16.10 inquire about the existence of documents. If Defendant does not have information requested, he could simply reply in the negative to the request as permitted. If Sarian raise valid objections based on privilege, he is otherwise required to include a description of the document.

            Accordingly, the Court finds Sarian’s mere assertion of privilege objection, without provide any descriptive information, does not sufficiently respond to the interrogatories aimed at discovering the existence of documents in his possession.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Beltran also requests the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,400.00, against Defendant Sarian and his attorney of record, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which states, “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 further 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.”

Given that the Court has previously granted the Motion and no substantial justification exists to exempt the mandatory monetary sanction, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work in preparing the Motion is $1,110.00, calculated at a reasonable hourly rate of $350.00 for three hours reasonably spent, plus $60.00 for filing fees.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Roubik Keshesh’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Garnik Sarian is ordered to produce supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Roubik Keshesh’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Garnik Sarian and his attorney of record are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay $1,110.00 to Plaintiff within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.