Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00945, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20BBCV00945    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE

ALLEGATIONS: 

Key Star Capital Fund, II, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership (“Key Star”) filed suit against VFX Hollywood, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“VFX”), Pratibha Itikalapati (“Itikalapati”), and Zohra Tariq (“Tariq”) alleging VFX breached a loan agreement with Key Star. Key Star also alleges Itikalapati and Tariq breached their guaranty agreement.

On December 23, 2020, Key Star filed a Complaint, alleging six (6) causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Agreement (as to VFX), (2) Breach of Guaranty (as to Itikalapati and Tariq), (3) Money Lent, (4) Account Stated, (5) Unjust Enrichment, and (6) Foreclosure of Security Interest (as to VFX).

On March 18, 2022, the Court entered default judgment against Defendants. On March 29, 2022 Itikalapati filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. On May 20, 2022 Itikalapati’s motion was granted.

On April 14, 2022, the Court issued a stay of proceedings as to Tariq.

On September 7, 2022, Key Star filed a notice of assignment to National Lending Services, LLC (“National Lending”). National Lending now moves to compel Itikalapati’s response to their discovery demands.

HISTORY: 

On February 23, 2023, National Lending filed this motion to compel discovery responses.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

National Lending requests the Court issue an order to compel responses to its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. National Lending also requests an order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) matters admitted. National Lending also requests the Court order sanctions against Itikalapati and her counsel Darrel C. Menthe in the amount of $1,635.00.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

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.  (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300, (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions 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. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(c).) The same is true for a motion to compel a response to a demand for the production of documents. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).)

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Id.)

II.              MERITS

Request to Compel Responses & Deem RFA Admitted

Plaintiff submitted evidence it propounded its first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for the Production of Documents, and RFA on Itikalapati on November 28, 2022, via mail. (Schiern Decl. ¶ 2.) On January 3, 2023, Itikalapati served unverified responses to National Lending’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 3.) Itikalapati also objected to each of the Special interrogatories and Requests for Documents on grounds the action was stayed by the filing of bankruptcy of defendant Zohra Tariq. (Id.)

On February 1, 2023, counsel for National Lending sent an email to Itikalapati’s counsel regarding the incomplete responses and lack of verifications. (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. 5.) On February 3, 2023, National Lending’s counsel sent another email to Itikalapati’s counsel asking if Itikalapati would be serving revised responses with verifications. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. 6.) Itikalapati’s counsel responded that his client would be providing new responses. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh 7.) No responses were received. (Id. ¶ 8) On February 21, 2023, National Lending’s counsel sent another email to Itikalapati’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Itikalapati’s initial response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for the Production of Documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem RFA matters admitted is also GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. It is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)  Additionally, The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)

Here, Plaintiff has prepared and filed a motion to compel and deem RFA matters admitted, while Itikalapati has rendered no opposition. As such, the court awards sanctions to National Lending with respect to the motion to compel and the requests to deem RFA matters admitted. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,635, based on two and half hours of attorney work in preparing the motion and an hour estimated for appearance at the April 14, 2023 hearing at a rate of $450 an hour ((450 x 3.5= 1,575) + 60 = $1,635). (Schiern Decl. Exh. 7.) Sanctions are awarded jointly and severally against Itikalapati and her counsel Darrel C. Menthe.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

National Lending Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Deem Matters in Request for Admissions Admitted came on regularly for hearing on April 14, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PRATIBHA ITIKALAPATI AND HER COUNSEL DARREL C. MENTHE.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, NATIONAL LENDING IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 14, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles