Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01020, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01020    Hearing Date: December 1, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE

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: 

Topa Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”), as subrogee of its insured Khachik Aslanyan, brings this action against Garnik Gholikandi Badalyans, individually and dba 11104 Oro Vista LLC, Taltech Construction, Inc. (“Taltech”) and 11104 Oro Vista, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks subrogation in connection with losses its alleges were caused by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failure to design and contract ventilation safeguards at 11104 Oro Vista Ave, Sunland, California 91040, resulted in significant water damage to that property.

Plaintiff now moves to compel the responses of Taltech to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents (“RFPD”). The motions are unopposed.

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 response 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 to produce 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. 

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).)

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

Plaintiff propounded its first set of Form Interrogatories and RFPD on July 26, 2023 via service upon Taltech’s counsel. (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff sent a certified meet and confer letter to Taltech’s counsel indicating no responses were ever received. (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff then attempted to reach Taltech’s counsel by phone to further meet and confer but received no response to their voicemails. (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 7.) As of the filing of these motions Plaintiff has received no responses from Taltech. (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 8.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Taltech’s initial response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and RFPD are 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 C.C.P. § 2030.290. As per C.C.P. § 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Additionally, 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).) 

Here, Plaintiff prepared and filed two motions to compel, while Taltech has filed no oppositions. As such, the Court awards sanctions to Plaintiff with respect to the motions to compel. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $660, based on two hours of attorney work in preparing the motions at a rate of $300 an hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 9.) The Court finds this amount reasonable considering the similarity of the motions and that Plaintiff was not required to review or reply to any oppositions. Sanctions are awarded against Taltech and its counsel jointly and separately.

--- 

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 

Topa Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on December 1, 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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $660. SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST TALTECH AND ITS COUNSEL.  SANCTIONS ARE PAYABLE WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 1, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles