Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00313, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00313    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: O

  Case Name:  De Barros v. Aldamisa Entertainment, LLC, et al.

Case No.:                    22SMCV00313

Complaint Filed:                   3-3-22

Hearing Date:            5-2-23

Discovery C/O:                     10-13-23

Calendar No.:            7

Discover Motion C/O:          10-30-23

POS:                           OK

Trial Date:                             11-13-23

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SETS OF FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS SERGEI BESPALOV, MARINA BESPALOV AND 4TREE ENTERPRISES, LP; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $960

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Nadine De Barros

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Sergei Bespalov, Marina Bespalov and 4Tree Enterprises, LP

 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Nadine De Barros’s Motion to Compel Answers to First Sets of Form Interrogatories to [sic] Defendants Sergei Bespalov, Marina Bespalov and 4Tree Enterprises, LP and for Monetary Sanctions of $960 is GRANTED.

 

            Plaintiff De Barros moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.5-2.7, 3.2 and 15.1 from Defendants Sergei Bespalov, Marina Bespalov and 4Tree Enterprises, LP.  Plaintiff argues the objections asserted to these form interrogatories are meritless. 

 

            In response, Defense counsel filed a declaration indicating that Defendants Bespalov are currently in trial.  See Dec. of R. Wilton, ¶¶4-5.  Defense counsel indicates they have been unable to devote much time or effort to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff in this case.  Id.  He confirmed, however, that parties did not reach an agreement on the instant motion and hearing date.  Id. at ¶7.  There is therefore no opposition to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.  The objections are boilerplate and meritless. 

 

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories and RFAs.  See Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.  The motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.5-2.7, 3.2 and 15.1 from Defendants Sergi Bespalov, Marina Bespalov and 4Tree Enterprises, LP is GRANTED.  Defendants are ordered to serve responses within 20 days.  Defendants and defense counsel are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $960 within 20 days (2 hours @ $450/hr and a $60 filing fee).