Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00985, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00985    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 30, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         SARKIS MAKAROJI ARTIN TERZIAN, v. TAICANG VEVOR MACHINERY EQUIPMENT CO., LTD, a limited company; SAVEN CORPORATION, a California corporation; VEVOR CORPORATION, a California corporation; VEVOR MACHINERY EQUIPMENT CO., LTD, a limited company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00985

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Motion to compel further responses and motion for relief from waiver filed by Plaintiff

                                                Motion to compel a response and to deem admitted filed by Defendant Saven Corporation (“Saven”)

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to his requests for the production of documents and for an order for relief from waiver of objections.

            Saven moves for an order compelling a response to its form interrogatories and for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in its requests for admissions admitted.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Sarkis Makaroji Artin Terzian’s (“Plaintiffs”) product liability claim. Plaintiff filed this complaint on November 2, 2022, alleging six causes of action for (1) strict products liability, (2) failure to warn, (3) breach of express warranties, (4) breach of implied warranties,  (5) negligent products liability, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to RFP numbers 1 and 2. Saven is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Saven’s motions to compel a response and to deem the truth of the matters asserted in its RFAs admitted is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party fails to respond to a request for admission, “[t]he 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”.

DISCUSSION

            Motion to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to his requests for production of documents. Plaintiff provides he served his discovery responses on May 24, 2023. (Podolsky Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant served deficient responses on July 17, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) In opposition, Saven provides it served supplemental responses on September 14, 2023. (Sergian Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit A.)

            Saven provides that the only pending discovery requests are requests for production numbers 1 and 2.

            RFP No. 1: All DOCUMENTS that PERTAIN TO any returns to YOU of the SUBJECTFOOD PROCESSOR during the ten (10) year period prior to and including the present date.

            RFP No. 2: All DOCUMENTS that PERTAIN TO any complaints made to YOU about the SUBJECT FOOD PROCESSOR during the ten (10) year period prior to and including the present date.

            Saven provides it is unable to provide any responses to RFP numbers 1 and 2 because they have limited access to Vevor’s system. (Liu Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Saven provides it was unable to find any emails referencing the subject food processor within the last year. (Id. ¶ 7.)

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to RFP numbers 1 and 2. Saven is ordered to produce any responsive documents readily available. However, Saven may, if appropriate, state it has no responsive documents in its possession.

            Motion to Compel a Response and Deem Admitted

            Saven moves for an order compelling a response to its form interrogatories and for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in its requests for admissions deemed admitted.

            Saven provides it served its discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 22, 2023. (Sergian Decl ¶ 2.) In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel provides that he did not receive any email containing discovery requests. (Koron Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides he served verified responses on October 14, 2023. Despite the responses, Saven served the present motions on October 15, 2023, and filed them on October 16, 2023.

            Saven does not dispute that these motions were filed after Plaintiff served its responses but contends that the responses were deficient. However, because responses were served, Saven should have filed a motion to compel further with a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345. Saven did not comply with this requirement. Further, Plaintiff provides he served supplemental responses to Defendant’s requests for admissions on November 27, 2023.

            Because Plaintiff served its responses before Saven served or filed the present motions, Saven’s motions are improper. Further, Saven seeks mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), which provides in part: “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” However, the responses were served before the motion was filed, meaning Plaintiff’s actions did not necessitate the present motions.

            Saven’s motions to compel a response and for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted are denied.

            Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objection

            Plaintiff moves for relief from waiver of objections. The Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party who fails to serve timely responses waives the right to object to discovery requests. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (a).) However, a party may be relieved from this waiver if it demonstrates it served responses in substantial compliance with the applicable statutes and its failure to serve responses was a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (See, e.g. Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)

            Plaintiff provides that his failure to provide timely responses was because his counsel never received the email containing the discovery requests. (Koron Dec. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides he served his initial responses on October 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff provides he also served responses on November 13, 2023. (Id.  9.) Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver is granted.

Lastly, the court emphasizes that “reasonable and food faith efforts at informal resolution of discovery disputes are no doubt a key part of the discovery system.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Further, “ ‘ “[m]issue of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to authorized discovery [and] providing evasive discovery responses . . ..” ’ ” (Clement v. Aleegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1286.) The court cautions the parties against any future efforts to avoid engaging in the discovery process in good faith and warns that sanctions will be imposed against parties violating these precepts.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to RFP numbers 1 and 2. Saven is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Saven’s motions to compel a response and to deem the truth of the matters asserted in its RFAs admitted is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff to provide notice.

Dated:   January 30, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org