Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00407, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00407    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

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: 

10415 Commerce, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Hratchia Bardakjian (“Defendant”). Plaintiff claims Defendant prevented entry to properties owned by Plaintiff at 703 and 707 E. Angeleno Ave., Burbank, CA 91501 (the “Property”) thereby leading to waste. Plaintiff’s principal is Arman Yegiyants (“Yegiyants”) with whom Defendant has had a long running business dispute. This is one of many cases relating to the prior business relationship of Defendant and Yegiyants.

Before the Court is a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling further response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, which reads as follows:

Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each:

(a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense;

(b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

Defendant has rendered no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.            LEGAL STANDARD 

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

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.) 

II.            MERITS

Plaintiff states they served their Form Interrogatories on Defendant on June 15, 2023. (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to reply to these requests to August 1, 2023. (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 3.) On August 15, 2023, Defendant served their discovery responses on Plaintiff. (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter attempted to meet and confer regarding what Plaintiff perceived as a deficient response to Form Interrogatory 15.1. (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant agreed to supplement the responses thereafter, but no supplemental responses were ever received by Plaintiff. (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff argues that further production is required in response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 because Plaintiff’s response is incomplete. Defendant did not identify any information responsive to the denial in his pleadings, only information responsive to the affirmative defenses. (See Gamzo Decl., Exh. 5.)

The Court notes that Defendant has rendered no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).)

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause of ordering further production. The information concerning Defendant’s general denial in his Answer is most certainly relevant to the prosecution of this action. The Court agrees that the current responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 are incomplete are require supplementing to be fully responsive to the request.

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 is GRANTED.

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) 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).) 

The Court finds sanctions would ordinarily be in order as a result of Defendant’s failure to oppose this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel submits information regarding their hourly rate, $325, but submits no information as to the amount of hours expended in preparing the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel only attests that they “…have incurred, and expect to incur, in excess of $1,000 of attorney time.” (Gamzo Decl. ¶ 9.) The Court is unable to determine from this statement the amount of work expended in preparing the unopposed motion and thus cannot determine the amount of sanctions to issue.

--- 

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 

10415 Commerce, LLC’s Motion to Comple Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on December 8, 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.

FURTHER PRODUCTION IS ORDERED TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.

THE COURT DECLINES TO ISSUE SANCTIONS.

THE COURT SCHEDULES A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR MARCH 28, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

DATE: December 8, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles