Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV26356, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26356    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed:  a motion to compel Defendants’ depositions (the “Deposition Motion”) a motion to compel Rayan’s further responses to Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set 2 (the “RFP Motion”); and three motions to compel Defendants’ further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2 (collectively, the “FROG Motions”) (collectively, the Motions”).  The RFP Motion and FROG Motions are unopposed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

DISCUSSION

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents 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.  (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1).)  The good cause requirement is met if the proponent shows that there exists “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.”  (Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. 

Under CCP section 2025.450, where a deponent fails to attend a deposition and produce documents, an opposing party can ask the court to order the deponent’s attendance and testimony at a deposition, as well the production of the documents specified in the deposition notice.  The motion must include: (1) facts showing good cause justifying the production of documents; and (2) where a deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, a declaration must accompany the motion indicating that the party seeking the order to compel contacted the deponent to inquire about the deponent’s nonappearance.  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)

Defendants argue that the Deposition Motion is improper because Hooman and Rayan timely served objections to the Deposition Notice.  Plaintiff provides evidence in its reply (the “Deposition Reply”) that the objections were not timely served in accordance with CCP section 1101.  (See Declaration of Kyle S. Case (“Case Decl.”) ¶¶ 10-13.)  Moreover, given the proximity of the trial and Defendants’ pattern of evading discovery responsibilities, the Court finds that the Deposition Motion was filed in good faith. 

The Court therefore GRANTS the Deposition Motion.  Defendants are ordered to appear for their noticed depositions on April 12, 2023, April 13, 2023, and April 14, 2023.  As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the RFP Motion and FROG Motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Monetary Sanctions

In connection to the Deposition Motion, Plaintiff seeks $2,510 in sanctions.  This amount represents: (1) one hour of meet and confer efforts at a rate of $310 per hour; (2) an estimated four hours preparing the moving and reply papers at a rate of $380 per hour; (3) two hours travelling to and attending the hearing at a rate of $310 per hour; and (4) a $60 filing fee.  (Depo. Case Decl. ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff also seeks $992 in connection to each FROG Motion and $2,352 in connection to the RFP Motion.   

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,610, which represents a total of five hours working on the Motions collectively at a rate of $310 per hour and the $60 filing fee incurred with respect to the Deposition Motion.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendants are jointly responsible to pay this amount within 20 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

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.

          Dated this 12th day of April 2023