Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01829, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01829    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 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: 

Hagop Bardakjian (Plaintiff) brings this action against Jamal Dawood (Defendant) and Ferris Abassi (Abassi). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and Abassi conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his ownership interest in 703 E Angeleno LLC And 707 E Angeleno LLC.

Defendant now moves for an order compelling further responses to his Request for the Production of Document (RFPD). While the noticed motion sought further responses to RFPD Nos. 1-11, Defendant withdrew his motion as to Nos. 1-9 on January 24, 2024. The motion remains for RFPD Nos. 10 and 11. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendant has not rendered a reply.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

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.) 

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)  

II.                 MERITS

RFPD & Objections

Defendant seeks to compel further responses to his RFPD Nos. 10 and 11, which request the following:

RFPD No. 10: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU (the term “YOU” means you, your agents, attorney’s, representatives, employees, accountants, and anyone acting on your behalf) and ABBASI (the term “ABBASI” means Ferris Abbasi, his agents attorneys, representatives, employees, accountants and anyone acting on his behalf), limited to electronic messages, texts, chats, letters, notes, and facsimile transmissions.

RFPD No. 11: All COMMUNICATIONS relating to ABBASI.

Plaintiff objects to both of these requests on grounds that the requests are compound, vague and ambiguous, and overly broad.

Analysis

Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to discovery and thus waived all objections. (See C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).) Defendant propounded his RFPD on October 13, 2023 via email, resulting in a deadline of November 15, 2023 when factoring in weekends and an additional 2 days for electronic service. (See Mot. p. 12.) Defendant states that responses to discovery were served on November 22, 2023. (Id.) In the meet and confer correspondence Defendant advised Plaintiff of the waiver. (See Exh. 7.) Plaintiff has not substantively addressed their argument in either the opposing memorandum or the accompanying declaration. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not address the matter of waiver in any of the subsequent meet and confer correspondence. (See Exhs. 10 & 12.)

Pursuant to statute, the failure to timely reply results in a waiver of objections.  Plaintiff therefore waived objections by not timely responding to the RFPD in the first instance and did not set forth a legal basis for relief from the waiver under C.C.P. § 2031.300. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to RFPD Nos. 10 and 11 is GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, 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. § 2031.310(h).) Substantial justification means a justification that is well grounded in both law and fact. (Doe v. U.S. Swimming Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.)

Here, Plaintiff has opposed the motion without substantial justification. The rendering of an opposition without first seeking relief from wavier of the objections upon which the opposition is based is not justified. 

Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,460 as against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally. This amount reflects 2.8 hours of attorney work at a rate of $500 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Bryner Decl. ¶ 13.) This amount does not reflect the amount of time anticipated in replying to the opposition, as no reply was filed.

--- 

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 

Jamal Dawood’s Motion to Compel Deposition came on regularly for hearing on February 16, 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 FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPD NOS. 10 AND 11 IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,460 AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  February 16, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles