Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00932, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00932    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

 NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS:

Jim Cohan ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint on November 8, 2022, against Sami Ammari ("Defendant")  alleging three causes of action: (1) quiet title; (2) constructive trust; (3) and resulting trust.   

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiff moves for orders to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,465.00.   

This motion was filed on January 22, 2024. An opposition to this motion was not filed; however, Defendant only filed an opposition to the motion concerning interrogatories and special interrogatories on February 5, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A party must respond to a requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom a request for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(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).)

II.        MERITS

Plaintiff submitted evidence it propounded his Requests for the Production of Documents, on Defendant on September 7, 2023, via email to Peter M. Cho, Esq. (Miller Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that he received no responses to the request, even with a 30 day extension, leaving the responses due on October 7, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)

As of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not rendered a response to this motion. Defendant did not file any opposition to this motion within nine days of the hearing as per C.C.P. § 1005(b).

The Court does note, that similar to the Plaintiff’s prior motions to compel discovery, Plaintiff presented contradictory evidence concerning proper service of his discovery demands. Plaintiff submits the declaration of his counsel, Richard T. Miller (Miller), which attests that discovery was served on Defendant directly by email on September 7, 2023. However, the proofs of service attached to the Miller declaration state that the discovery was served by U.S. mail on that same date.  While it may not be clear from Plaintiff’s submissions how these documents were served, unlike the other motions to compel Defendant filed an opposition.   In that prior opposition, Defendant attested he never received the discovery demands.   That is not the case here.   No opposition to refute receipt of this discovery was received.  Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant’s initial response to Request for Documents (Set One) is granted.

III.       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 and 2031.290.) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 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. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) Here, Plaintiff prepared and filed the instant motion while Defendant has rendered no opposition. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions to Plaintiff in the reduced amount of  $660 based on 2 hours of attorney work per motion at $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee (300 x 2.0 = 600 + 60 = 660). The additional 3.0 hours estimated by Defendant’s attorney in preparing a reply is not present in the above calculation given that no opposition was filed.

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

Plaintiff Jim Cohan's Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Documents (Set One) came on regularly for hearing on March 1, 2024, 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 RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.00.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  March 1, 2024                              

_______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles