Judge Frank M. Tavelman, Case 22BBCV00461 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00461, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

SUBMITTING
ON THE TENTATIVE

The Court tries to post tentative rulings prior to any
hearing on many matters, but not all. If
the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance, all counsel must confer and agree to do so. Each counsel must contact the court and
advise they are submitting on the matter, that they have spoken to opposing
counsel who has indicated they too are submitting and will be calling the
court. All submitting counsel must call Dept A by 9:00 a.m. on the day of the
hearing and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling or in lieu
may indicate the party is submitting during calendar check-in and notice of the
ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative. If any party declines to
submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all
parties should appear at the hearing in person or remotely.

Case Number: 22BBCV00461 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

TENTATIVE RULING

MAY 4, 2023

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 22BBCV00461

MP:	Mikayel Israyelyan (Plaintiff)
RP:	Krikor Bardakjian (Defendant)

ALLEGATIONS:

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Mikayel Israyelyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, against Krikor Bardakjian (“Defendant”), Krikor Bardakjian, DDS, Inc., Noho Dental Group by Bardakjian DDS, Inc., Sherman Oaks Dental Group by Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc., and 485 Cliff Dr. LLC, alleging nine causes of action and seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3,000,000.00, general damages, punitive and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

On August 2, 2022, Defendant and Cross-Complainants BDP filed their Cross Complaint against Plaintiff, Alina Bagasian (“Bagasian”), Liana Sahakyan (“Sahakyan”), Suren Minasyan (“Minasyan”), Irnes Okanovich (“Okanovich”), Muse Lifestyle Group, LLC (“Muse”), Laureate Aesthetics Management (“Laureate”), and Does 1 Through 50, alleging 15 causes of action and seeking a jury trial as to various damages.

HISTORY:

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. On February 17, 2023 Defendant filed his opposition. On February 24, 2023 Plaintiff filed his reply.

On March 3, 2023, the motion was continued in light of Defendant’s subsequent document production. Parties were ordered to further meet and confer and submit any supplemental briefings ahead of the April 14, 2023 hearing.

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an initial Supplemental Brief (“Brief”). On Apr 14, 2023, Defendant filed an initial Reply Brief (“Reply”)

On April 14, 2023 the motion was again continued to provide the Court adequate time to review. Plaintiff was ordered to provide further clarification as to what production was sought.

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Final Supplemental Brief (“Final Brief”). On April 26, 2023, Defendant filed a Final Reply Brief (“Final Reply”).

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents and to award monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,661.65.

ANALYSIS:

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFPD”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).)

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

“In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.) “If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.” (Id.)

CCP § 2031.220 provides “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

CCP § 2031.230 provides “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

II. MERITS

Timeline of Production

Defendant initially only produced a list of objections to each of Plaintiff’s 203 requests on various grounds.

On December 15, 2022 Plaintiff requested responsive documents be served by December 22, 2022. The parties then agreed to extend this deadline to January 20, 2023. Defendant did not render the documents as per the agreed upon extension deadline, instead rendering a total of 3,096 documents in response on February 16, 2023. At that time Defendant requested Plaintiff remove this motion from the calendar. (Oppo. pg. 5.) Defendant then filed his opposition to the motion on February 17, 2023. Plaintiff declined to remove the motion from the calendar and filed a reply on February 24, 2023.

On March 16, 2023, Defendant supplemented his production by producing 387 pages of documents. Plaintiff claims 230 pages of this production were previously produced. (Brief pg. 3.) On April 4, 2023, Defendant again produced additional documents. Various meet and confer discussions occurred between each round of subsequent production. Plaintiff maintains production remains incomplete.

Defendant’s “Equally Available” Objection

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Defendant’s objection to several requests on grounds that the documents are equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s, Muse Lifestyle Group, collected and maintained all financial records and QuickBooks, filed tax returns, prepared and stored all financial documents pertaining to Defendant’s dental practices.

With respect to answering interrogatories, a party must “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where that information is equally available to the propounding party." (CCP § 2030.220(c).) Here, however, the discovery request at issue is not an interrogatory but a request for production of documents and the statute governing responses to requests for production does not provide for an “equally available” response. (CCP § 2031.210.) As such, Defendant’s objection is without merit.

Documents Which Remain to be Produced

Plaintiff argues Defendant has produced no responses to the following requests. Unless otherwise stated, the Court’s analysis of each request finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for further production.

All communication with Plaintiff from 2013 through 2019 (RFPD No. 5).

Defendant claims he has produced all text messages from 2019 to present after a diligent search (Final Reply, Exh. E). CCP § 2031.230 requires Defendant submits facts which support his statement as to why these documents cannot be located. Defendant provides no facts to this effect.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

Personal tax returns for the years 2013-2021 (RFPD. No. 7).

Defendant claims he has produced personal tax returns to which he has access, and he has been unable to get the rest from his accountant. Defendant’s counsel has stated they intend to subpoena the accountant to obtain and produce the remaining returns. (Final Reply, Exh. E pg. 2.) Defendant’s responses are adequate as per CCP § 2031.220.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc.’s P&Ls for 2011-2012 (RFPD No. 9). & Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc.’s P&Ls for 2018-to present (RFPD Nos 10).

Defendant states he cannot locate these documents after diligent effort. (Final Reply, Exh E, pg. 2.) Further, Defendant states he cannot locate these documents because he was not involved in the operation of Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc. and thus was never in possession of responsive documents. (Id.)

However, Plaintiff included the profit and loss statements for Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc. for June 2022 and transaction detail by account for the year 2021 in his February 16, 2023 supplemental production. (Reply pg. 5, ¶ 4.). Defendant provides no explanation as to why he would lack possession of the documents from 2011-2012 but was able to produce the documents for 2022. Defendant’s statement that he was uninvolved with the finances of the company does not comport with his subsequent production.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

Noho Dental Group’s tax returns for 2020 (RFPD No. 11)

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Addendums and amendments to the operating agreement of 485 Cliff Drive, LLC (RFPD Nos. 18-19), Documents evidencing the source of funds for the purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 22), Escrow documents for the purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 23), Documents evidencing the source of funds for the renovation of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 24), Documents evidencing the funds borrowed by Dr. Bardakjian from John Ohannes Manuel Tchaboukian for the purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 25), & Documents evidencing the funds repaid by Dr. Bardakjian to John Ohannes Manuel Tchaboukian for the purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 26).

Defendant initially stated that, after a reasonable and diligent inquiry, he was not in possession of any responsive documents at this time. (Separate Statement “SS” pg. 20.) Defendant further stated he reserved the right to supplement and/or amend this response as investigation continues. (Id.) Defendant states he has produced all documents in his possession relating to 485 Cliff Drive, LLC on February 16, 2023 including wire instructions and escrow information. (Reply pg. 5, ¶ 6.) Defendant states he is not in possession of any addendum and was unable to locate one. (Reply Exh, E pg. 2.) Defendant further states any existing Grant Deeds will be produced. (Id.)

However, Defendant does not aver, as per CCP § 2031.230, as to why the addendum and remaining documents could not be found. Plaintiff states in his Brief that Defendant has produced no addendums or amendments to the operating agreement (Brief pg. 5.) Plaintiff states Defendant has not produced any escrow documents beyond closing documents. (Id.) Plaintiff also states Defendant did not produce documents pertaining to the amount of funds he invested for the renovation of this property, or repayment of any funds borrowed by him. (Id.)

CCP § 2031.230 requires Defendant submits facts which support his statement as to why these documents cannot be located. Defendant provides no facts to this effect. Defendant’s reasoning for his failure to fully produce responsive documents to most of these categories is insufficient as per CCP § 2031.230.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

All bank Statements from Golden State Bank for the period of January 1, 2013, through January 31, 2019, and October 1, 2019 to the present (RFPD No. 33).

Defendant states he produced all bank Statements from Golden State Bank on February 16, 2023. (Reply pg. 6, ¶12.) Plaintiff states Defendant only produced statements for the period of February 2019 through September 30, 2019, while the requests ask for all bank statements, records of all deposits, and records of the source of deposit from January 1, 2013 to the present. (Brief pg. 6.) Defendant provides no explanation as to why the remaining documents were not produced and states no facts as to why they are not in his possession.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

All communications with Cross-Defendant Liana Sahakyan concerning Mr. Israyelyan (RFPD No. 67).

Defendant states he will produce all redacted communications with Ms. Sahakyan concerning Plaintiff and he is in a process of recovering such communications from various electronic sources. (Final Reply, Exh. E pg. 3.) Defendant’s responses are adequate as per CCP § 2031.220.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

All communications with David Mgeryan concerning Mr. Israyelyan (RFPD No. 70), and Alina Bagasian (RFPD No. 71).

Plaintiff states he is aware that Defendant communicated with David Mgeryan, but Defendant maintains that he does not have any responsive documents. (Brief pg. 7.) Defendant’s April 4, 2023 production states he will provide verified supplemental responses that the communications have been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, or have never been, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. (Reply pgs. 6, & 7.) Plaintiff does not argue in his final brief that this supplemental response is insufficient as per CCP § 2031.230.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to these requests.

CareCredit Reports from January 1, 2013, through present (RFPD No. 74).

Defendant states he does not have any CareCredit Report from January 1, 2013 to present in his possession. (Reply pg. 7.) Defendant further states he produced a letter from CareCredit regarding termination to his locations on April 4, 2023. (Id.)

Without further explanation, Defendant’s letter that CareCredit terminated his locations is not sufficient to show why CareCredit Reports from years prior are not available to him. Defendant’s statement is insufficient as per CCP § 2031.230.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

All documents related to Defendant’s work schedule from January 1, 2013, through present (RFPD No. 75) & All calendars for dental practices from January 1, 2013, through present (RFPD No. 76).

Plaintiff argues good cause exists to compel further responses to these requests because they contain information concerning the number of patients serviced by Defendant’s dental practices, and the income derived therefrom, which Plaintiff claims in his complaint was underreported. (Brief pg. 8.) The Court finds good cause has been shown.

Defendant objects to these requests on grounds they are violative of third-party privacy rights.

“Courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833.) “In determining whether disclosure is required, the court must indulge in a ‘careful balancing’ of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other. [Citation.] The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. [Citation.] Based on an application of these factors, the more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought to be discovered, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted. [Citations.]” (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004.)

Here, Plaintiff requests all documents related to Defendant’s work schedule and all calendars from Defendant’s practices. These broadly worded requests almost certainly encompass a great number of documents which include confidential patient information. Plaintiff’s stated interest in obtaining this information is to determine the capital generated by Defendant’s practice. It appears through Plaintiff’s many other document requests that there exist several alternative methods of obtaining this information. Plaintiff’s do not aver to any unique information these requests provide which would offset the privacy violations they would entail.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Documents pertaining to the vehicles in Dr. Bardakjian’s name (RFPD No. 84).

Defendant states he is in good faith continuing discovery and investigation and will comply and produce additional documents if found. (Reply pg. 7, ¶18.) CCP § 2031.220 requires a statement of compliance be accompanied by a statement of the documents to be produced and that such documents are in Defendant’s possession. Defendants’ response does not contain language to this effect.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

Documents pertaining to the monies due and owing to Dr. Bardakjian (RFPD No. 85).

Defendant states he produced documents responsive to this request on February 16, 2023. (SS pg. 104.) Plaintiff argues the documents were not produced but does not specify which documents he believed remain to be produced. (Id.) Plaintiff does not elaborate in either his first or second supplemental briefs.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Stock certificates and/or stock ownership documents (RFPD No. 86) & Lease Agreements (RFPD No. 88).

Defendant states he is in good faith continuing discovery and investigation and will comply and produce additional documents if found. (Reply pg. 7, ¶¶ 20 & 21.) CCP § 2031.220 requires a statement of compliance be accompanied by a statement of the documents to be produced and that such documents are in Defendant’s possession. Defendants’ response does not contain language to this effect.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

RFPD Nos. 96-172.

Both parties group these requests together in their briefing as they all pertain to allegations made by Defendant in his Cross-Complaint.

On February 16, 2023, Defendant supplemented his responses and produced documents responsive to these requests labeled Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and K. (SS, pgs. 119-255.) Plaintiff argues it is not clear whether Defendant has produced all documents pertaining to his allegations in the Cross-Complaint. (Brief pg. 8.) Defendant states that on April 4, 2023, his counsel sent a meet and confer letter that documents relating to the allegations in the cross-complaints have not been produced because discovery and investigation is ongoing. (Reply pgs. 9-13.)

In Defendant’s initial opposition, he submitted the declaration of his counsel Marina Samson. Samson stated the February 16, 2023 production was a full disclosure of the documents in Defendant’s possession which responded to these requests. (Samson Decl. ¶¶ 10, 18.) In Plaintiff’s initial Brief, he submits the declaration of his counsel Talin V. Yacoubian. Yacoubian states a review of the documents produced on February 16, 2023 revealed the bulk of the documents requested remain to be produced. (Yacoubian Decl. ¶¶ 3 & 10.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the documents which remain to be produced. It is clear Defendant has produced documents which are in some way responsive to request Nos. 96-172, yet Plaintiff maintains in his final brief that no responsive documents have been provided. Plaintiff’s final brief individually identifies each request from 96 to 172, but it does not identify which requests have been satisfied by the current production, nor does Plaintiff explain how the production that did occur is insufficient. Plaintiff only states Defendant hasn’t produced documents. This statement alone is insufficient to support a motion to compel.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to these requests.

Documents pertaining to all persons working at the dental practices (RFPD Nos. 174 and 178).

Plaintiff asserts these requests are issued because he has a right to subpoena individuals working for Defendant for deposition. (SS pgs. 25& 263.) Defendant objects on grounds these requests are unduly burdensome and harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of relevant information. (Id.)

The Court notes the phrasing of these requests extends beyond the identification of individuals work for Defendant. Request No. 174 asks for “Each and every document concerning all persons working at your dental practices.” Request No. 178 asks for “Each and every document related to all personnel employed by you including their license to practice.” Plaintiff does not ask for a list of individuals employed by Defendant; they ask for every single document that is any way related to every employee of Defendant. The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument that good cause exists falls far short of such a sweeping request. Plaintiff has not stated facts establishing good cause to compel production of such a wide array of documents.

Even were good cause to be shown, Defendant’s objection as to burden has merit. Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Here the requests for documents are not tailored in any way, simply requesting the entire personnel file for every employee of Defendant. Plaintiff’s requests are worded in a way that they are overbroad on their face.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to these requests.

Communications with Medi-Cal from January 1, 2013, through the present (RFPD No. 175), All payments received from Medi-Cal from January 1, 2013, through the present (RFPD No. 176), All payments received from CareCredit from January 1, 2013, through the present (RFPD No. 177).

Defendant states he produced documents responsive to these requests on April 4, 2023 via electronic share link. (Reply, Exh. E pg. 4.) Plaintiff’s Brief, filed April 11, 2023, does not include these categories as requiring further production. However, the categories were added back into Plaintiff’s Final Brief on April 20, 2023. (Final Brief, pg. 6.) Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why the April 4, 2023 production by Defendant was insufficient.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to these requests.

Partial Production

All bank statements in his name for the period of January 1, 2013 to the present (RFPD Nos. 6.)

Plaintiff states while Defendant has provided substantial bank statements in response to this request, Defendant has not produced any statements from the Chase Bank account his dental practice maintained. (Brief pg. 4.) Defendant provides no argument in response.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

All Documents regarding Dr. Bardakjian’s purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive property (RFPD Nos. 20-21)

As previously stated in the Court’s ruling on Requests Nos. 22-25, Defendant’s statement as to the inability to produce further documents is insufficient as per CCP § 2031.230.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

All communications with John Ohannes Manuel Tchaboukian for the purchase of the 485 Cliff Drive Property (RFPD No. 27)

Plaintiff states Defendant subsequently produced text messages from November 14, 2019 and February 13, 2023. (Final Reply pg. 6.) Plaintiff states the production remains incomplete because the property was purchased in 2018. (Id.) Defendant provides no reply to this argument in their Final Reply. Defendant does not state whether communications prior to November 14, 2019 are not in his possession or otherwise unavailable as per CCP § 2031.230.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

All communications with Co-Defendant, Ani Dolbakyan, Defendant’s office manager, concerning Mikayel Israyelyan (RFPD No. 34), Liana Sahakyan (RFPD No. 36), Laureate Aesthetics (RFPD No. 37)

Plaintiff states Defendant supplemented his production by producing heavily redacted text messages from July 2022 through January 2023. (Final Reply pg. 7.) Plaintiff argues Defendant must be compelled to produce all communications with Ms. Dolbakyan from 2013 to the present. (Id.) Defendant claims he has produced all text messages available after a diligent search (Final Reply, Exh. E). However, Defendant submits no facts which support his statement as per CCP § 2031.230 as to why these documents cannot be located.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

Communications with Irnes Okanovich concerning Mr. Israyelyan (RFPD No. 43), dental practices (RFPD No. 44), and Laureate Aesthetics (RFPD No. 45).

Plaintiff states Defendant produced some communications with however, the April 4, 2023, letter from Dr. Bardakjian’s counsel accompanying the third supplemental production states that Dr. Bardakjian may have additional records. (Brief pg. 7.) Defendant claims he has produced all text messages currently available, though investigation continues (Final Reply, Exh. E). However, Defendant submits no facts which support his statement as per CCP § 2031.230 as to why these documents have not been located.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to these requests.

Communications with Gary Nalbandian (RFPD Nos. 68 and 69).

Defendant states he produced all communications between himself and Gary Nalbandian. (Reply, Exh. E.) Plaintiff argues it is unclear whether all communications were produced but provides no further reasoning. (Brief pg. 7.) Plaintiff does not elaborate in either his first or second supplemental briefs.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Dentrix Reports from January 1, 2013 through the present (RFPD No. 73).

Plaintiff states while Defendant produced some Dentrix reports, he never produced monthly reports nor the 2020-2021 reports for Noho Dental Group. (Final Reply pg. 7.) Defendant does not state a reason as to why these documents were not produced.

As such, the motion is GRANTED as to this request.

Documents pertaining to assets held by Dr. Bardakjian from January 1, 2013 through present (RFPD No. 77).

Defendant states, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, he produced all documents in his possession responsive to this request enclosed in Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F in the supplemental document production (Reply, Exh. E.) Plaintiff argues it is unclear whether all documents were produced but provides no further reasoning. (Brief pg. 7.) Plaintiff does not elaborate in either his first or second supplemental briefs.

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Documents pertaining to income generated by Defendant from January 1, 2013 through present (RFPD No. 92), income generated by Krikor Bardakjian DDS, Inc. (RFPD No. 93), Noho Dental Group (RFPD No. 94), and Sherman Oaks Dental (RFPD No. 95).

As such, the motion is DENIED as to this request.

Sanctions

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 because of that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions if a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 and 2031.290.) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Sinaiko supra, at 409.)

Defendant argues that he should not be subject to sanctions as his initial objections were meritorious and therefore not insubstantial. The fact that Defendant then rendered thousands of documents in response belies the fact that the initial objections were insubstantial. While the Court recognizes that Defendant’s late response was due in part to his father’s passing, it also notes that Defendant did not request a further extension of the time to reply. (Oppo. pg. 4.) The Court finds that Defendant’s delay of serving responsive documents without requesting additional extension to be a misuse of the discovery process subject to sanctions.

As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $3,661.65 reflecting 8 hours of attorney work in preparing this motion to compel and the filing fee associated. (450 x 8 = 3,600 + $61.65 = $3,661.65). (Yacoubian Decl. ¶ 14.)

---

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

Mikayel Israyelyan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on May 5, 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 IS GRANTED AS TO REQUESTS NOS. 5, 6, 10, 18, 19, 20-27, 33, 34, 36, 37, 43-45, 73, 74, 84, and 88.

THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO REQUESTS NOS. 7, 11, 67-69, 71, 75-77, 85, 92-95, 96-172, 174, 178, 175, 176, 177.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AGAINST KRIKOR BARDAKJIAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,661.65.