Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01302, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01302    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

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: 

Before the Court is a motion brought by Rozanna Avetyan (Plaintiff) compelling Arpine Melikyan’s (Defendant) response to Form and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff initially filed this motion with a motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents and a motion to deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted. These other motions were advanced then vacated at a February 29, 2024 Status Conference, but the motion to compel interrogatory responses remains. Defendant has rendered no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party served with interrogatories fails to timely respond, then 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 when no responses are served.  The moving party need only show 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.) 

Generally, 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).)

II.                 MERITS

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff propounded her Form and Special Interrogatories via e-mail upon Defendant’s counsel. (Campain Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant did not respond by the November 7, 2023 deadline. (Campain Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding the responses, indicating they would bring this motion if no response was had before January 31, 2024. (Campain Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond to this meet and confer email. (Campain Decl. ¶ 5.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel initial responses to her Special and Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Sanctions

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. Further, 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 has prepared and filed a motion to compel while Defendant has rendered no opposition. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,160. This amount reflects two hours of attorney work at a rate of $550 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee. (Campain Decl. ¶ 6.)

--- 

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 

Rozanna Avetyan’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on March 29, 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 TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL AND FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS MUST PRODUCE RESPONSES WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE ISSUED AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,160.  PAYMENT SHALL BE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  March 29, 2024                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles