Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00666, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21TRCV00666 Hearing Date: August 11, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, August 11, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 7
PROCEEDINGS
Sebastian Medvei v. Dominique Nikko Westmoreland, et al.
21TRCV00666
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Compel to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland
TENTATIVE RULING
Sebastian Medvei’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland is deemed moot.
Sebastian Medvei’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted by Dominique Mikko Westmoreland is denied.
Sebastian Medvei’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 10, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff, as a lawyer of Medvei Law Group, APC, represented a party that sued one of Defendant’s clients, Brandi Linton, in Case No. 20STCV42456. Thereafter, in a subsequent case, 21STCV07905, Defendant, via his client Brandi Linton, filed a Complaint against Plaintiff, who is not an immigration consultant as defined in the Immigrations Consultants Act (“ICA”), for violating the ICA. Plaintiff informed Defendant that the ICA does not apply to attorneys. Plaintiff repeatedly asked Defendant to dismiss the case and Defendant refused. Eventually, Plaintiff served a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 on Defendant. In response to that motion, Defendant voluntarily dismissed Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for Malicious Prosecution.
Motions to Compel/Motion to Deem Admitted
CCP § 2030.290 states: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply…The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
CCP § 2031.300 states: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(b)).
CCP § 2033.280(b) states: “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (CCP § 2033.280(b))
On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admissions, Set One, upon Defendant. Defendant failed to serve responses to the subject discovery requests. (Decl., Adrien Medvei, dated April 6, 2022.) On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set Two, upon Defendant. Defendant failed to serve responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Decl., Adrien Medvei, dated May 20, 2022).
On July 15, 2022, after the motion was filed, Defendant served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Decl., Rodney S. Diggs, dated July 14, 2022, ¶ 7.) The Court notes, however, it is unclear on what specific date responses were served because the declaration was purportedly executed prior to the responses being served. On July 28, 2022, after the motions were filed, Defendant served responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Decl., Rodney S. Diggs, and attached responses and proofs of service, dated July 28, 2022).
Thus, the motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are deemed moot. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is denied. Defendant’s responses are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. CCP § 2033.280(c).
With the oppositions, Defendant argues that all the discovery requests at issue with these motions, were not served on the date that they were purported served, but instead served with the motions. However, there is no adequate showing to corroborate this contention other than Defendant’s counsel’s self-serving accusations. Plaintiff filed facially valid proofs of service of all the discovery requests at issue and the Court determines that Defendant has not shown that these proofs of service are false and fraudulent. Thus, Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.
With Plaintiff’s replies, Plaintiff argues that the responses are deficient, not code-compliant, and that Defendant asserted objections when objections were waived. However, the propriety of these responses is not the subject of these motions and could potentially be the subject of motions to compel further responses which are timely noticed after the requisite meet and confer discussions.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted. Responses were only served after the motions were filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a). Further, as to the Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions admitted, it is mandatory to impose monetary sanctions on a party and/or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the filing of the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c).
Sanctions are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the total amount of $2,550.00. The hourly rate sought of $750 was deducted to a more reasonable rate of $375.00 per hour. The time allotted for preparation and appearance was 6 hours. Plaintiff was also awarded $300 in filing fees. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.