Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01061, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01061    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

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: 

Artashes Baylan (“Plaintiff’) brings this action against Oscar Yobani Mejia (“Defendant”) in connection with a motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulted in Plaintiff’s personal injury and property damage.

Defendant now moves for a protective order seeking to extend his time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to the various statutes governing the discovery at issue, a party responding to the discovery may move for an order extending the time to respond. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) The Court may, for good cause shown, grant a protective order extending the time to respond to discovery. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.090(b)(3), 2031.060(b)(2), 2033.080(b)(3).)

With respect to protective orders generally, the burden of showing good cause is ordinarily on the party seeking the protective order. The granting of a protective order is within the discretion of the trial court. (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145

II.                 MERITS

Defendant seeks an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery. Defendant is currently incarcerated and serving a six-year sentence, presenting difficulties in his communication with counsel. (Gordon Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant’s counsel states that discovery delays have occurred because Defendant cannot receive phone calls and all mail must go through the prison mail system. (Gordon Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant’s counsel states Defendant intends to render answers to the discovery but has yet to review the final answers or execute verifications. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant does not state in his motion when discovery was propounded, however Defendant’s exhibits reference that discovery was due on or around August 25, 2023. (Id. Exh A.) Defendant’s counsel states they met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, but received no response to an August 24, 2023 email requesting further extension. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed no motions to compel and Defendant states he is bringing this motion as a preemptive measure.

Plaintiff’s opposition clarifies that discovery was first propounded on April 10, 2023. (Dann Decl. ¶ 9.) Responses to the discovery were due on May 17, 2023, however Plaintiff provided several extensions. (Dann Decl. ¶ 11.) On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff provided a final extension to respond, extending the deadline to August 25, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff cautioned that no further extensions would be provided. Defendant requested a further extension on August 18, 2023, but Plaintiff declined. (Dann Decl. ¶ 12.) The Court notes Defendant filed this motion on August 30, 2023.

The Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for extension of the time to reply to Plaintiff’s discovery. Defendant’s moving papers fail to mention when the discovery was propounded and omit that Plaintiff had previously granted several extensions. While the Court is sympathetic to the difficulties of obtaining documentation from an incarcerated client, the fact remains that Defendant’s counsel has had the greater part of six months to do so and did not. Defendant’s counsel provides no detail beyond the fact that their client is incarcerated to explain the barriers to production. It does not seem likely that it would take more than six months to mail the interrogatories to Defendant and receive Defendant’s responses, even with the additional delay of the prison mail system.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for protective order to extend time for discovery responses is DENIED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions be granted against Defendant and his attorney pursuant to California Civ. Code § 2031.060(h).  Civ. Code § 2031.060(h) provides the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

The Court finds Defendant’s motion for protective order is without substantial justification. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,566.75. These sanctions are issued against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel jointly and severally. The amount reflects five hours of attorney work at a rate of $300 per hour, in addition to the $66.75 filing fee. (Dann Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.)

--- 

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 

Oscar Yobani Mejia’s Motion for Protective Order came on regularly for hearing on October 20, 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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT’S CONSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,566.75. SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

ALL EXISTING DATES TO REMAIN.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 20, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles