Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01621, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01621    Hearing Date: December 29, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS 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: 

Armen Margaryan (“Margaryan”) and Garik Grigoryan (“Grigoryan”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against U-Haul Co. of California (“U-Haul”) and Hayk Aleksandrovich (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle resulting in personal injury.

Before the Court are four motions to compel initial discovery responses brought by U-Haul. U-Haul seeks an order to compel both Margaryan and Grigoryan to respond to their Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents (“RFPD”). U-Haul also requests sanctions be granted in the amount of $ 1,372.65. Plaintiffs have not opposed these motions.

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 needs 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, they 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).)

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses & Deem RFA Admitted

Defendant propounded their Interrogatories and RFPD via e-mail on Plaintiff’s’ counsel on September 15, 2023. (Jansen Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant received no responses from Plaintiffs and reached out to meet and confer by email on October 27, 2023. (Jansen Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant states that as of the filing of this motion they have received no response to their discovery or meet and confer efforts. (Jansen Decl. ¶ 6.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD are GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions if 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.

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, Defendant prepared and filed several motions to compel, while Plaintiffs have filed no oppositions. As such, the court awards sanctions to Defendant as against each Plaintiff and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $555. This amount is based on one and a half hours of attorney work in preparing each motion at a rate of $435 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion. (Jansen Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) This amount does not reflect the time anticipated in replying, as no opposition was filed. The Court finds this amount reasonable given the relative complexity of the motions.

--- 

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 

U-Haul Co. of California’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on December 29, 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: 

U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO THEIR FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AS AGAINST ARMEN MARGARYAN AND HIS COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $555.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AS AGAINST GARIK GRIGORYAN AND HIS COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $555.

PRODUCTION IS TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 28, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 29, 2023                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles