Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV26356 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Rayan Nissani (“Rayan”), Hooman Nissani (“Hooman”), and NBA Automotive, Inc. (“NBA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) [1]

Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel Rayan’s responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Rayan FROG Motion”); (2) a motion to compel Rayan’s responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Rayan SPROG Motion”); (3) a motion deem the truth of its Requests for Admission, Set One as to Rayan (the “Rayan RFA Motion”); (4) a motion to compel Hooman’s compliance with his responses to Requests for Production, Set One (“RFPs”) (the “Hooman Motion”); and (5) a motion to compel NBA’s compliance with its responses to Requests for Production, Set One (the “NBA Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).[2]

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

Under CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).) 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. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).) It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Id.)

The Rayan Motions all seek to compel Rayan to submit signed verifications to his discovery responses.[3] Rayan’s verifications to the FROGs, SPROGs, and RFAs were served on February 14, 2023. (See Declarations of Duncan K. McCreary (“McCreary Decls.”) ¶ 2.) The Rayan Motions are therefore DENIED as to the requests to compel responses and deem responses admitted.[4] The Court will, however, consider the Rayan Motions’ requests for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff seeks $1,240 in sanctions in connection to each of the Rayan Motions. (See Declarations of Kyle S. Case (“Case Decls.”) ¶ 24.) This amount represents: (1) 2.5 hours preparing the moving papers; (2) an anticipated one hour reviewing and replying to opposition papers; and (3) an anticipated 30 minutes attending the hearing at a rate of $310 per hour. (Caes Decls. ¶¶ 22-23.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $930, which represents a total of three hours of time spent drafting the Rayan Motions collectively at a rate of $310 per hour. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Rayan and counsel are responsible for paying this amount within 20 days of this order.

A party to whom an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling demand has been directed may respond with an indication that the party will comply with the particular demand. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1).) Thereafter, if the responding party fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Id.)

Plaintiff propounded the RFPs on May 20, 2021. (Case Decl. ¶ 4.) On July 12, 2021, Hooman and NBA responded to the RFPs and indicated that they agreed to comply with the majority of the document requests but did not provide any documents. (See Case Decl. ¶5, Exhibit 2.)

After Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendants’ counsel, documents were produced on November 22, 2022. (Case Decl. ¶ 11, Exhibit 6.) Plaintiff contends Hooman and NBA did not produce documents responsive to numerous categories. (See Case Decl. ¶ 12, Exhibit 7.)

As an initial matter, Plaintiff was not required to show good cause for bringing the Hooman and NBA Motions, as both Motions were brought pursuant to CCP section 2031.210. Hooman and NBA argue that the requests are overbroad; however, the Court has reviewed the RFPs and finds that the requests are directed towards contractual agreements that are at issue in this action. Further, neither Hooman nor NBA asserted objections when they submitted their responses. A party whose response fails to set forth a particular ground for objection waives its right to raise that objection later. (See Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1144.)^{^[6]}

The Court therefore GRANTS the Hooman and NBA Motions. Hooman and NBA are ordered to produce documents in compliance with their responses within 20 days of this order.

In addition, Plaintiff seeks $1,054 in sanctions in connection to each of the Hooman and NBA Motions. This amount represents: (1) 1.9 hours preparing the moving papers; (2) an anticipated hour reviewing opposition papers and drafting reply papers; and (3) an anticipated 30 minutes attending the hearing at a rate of $310 per hour. (Case Decl. ¶¶ 21-22.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $775, which represents a total of 2.5 hours working on the Hooman and NBA Motions collectively at a rate of $310 per hour, which is to be paid within 20 days of this order. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court uses first names to distinguish persons with the same last name and intends no disrespect in so doing.

[2] The Court refers to the Motions directed at Rayan collectively as the “Rayan Motions.”

[3] Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Sappleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

[4] Although the SPROG Motion was not served in compliance with CCP section 1005, subdivision (b), because the Motion was continued from its original hearing date, Rayan had notice of the Motions consistent with the statutory notice requirements. The Court has exercised its discretion and considered the SPROG Motion on its merits.

[5] The Hooman and NBA Motions share the same underlying facts.

[6] Defendants are not, however, precluded from seeking a protective order. (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1144.)