Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 21BBCV00536, Date: 2023-06-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B

Plaintiff Yegishe Torosyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Plaintiff leased the premises at 11722 Saticoy St., Unit 16, North Hollywood, CA 91605 from Defendants Adil A. Barakat, The Barakat Trust, and Adil A. Barakat as trustee of The Barakat Trust (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants own, operate, manage, and maintain the property. Plaintiff alleges that the property has uninhabitable conditions, such as a broken and hazardous heater, peeling paint, damaged walls and floors, cracked ceilings, lack of hot water, and presence of mold in violation of the Civil Code and the Health and Safety Code. (FAC, ¶2.)

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed November 2, 2021, alleges causes of action for: (1) private nuisance; (2) breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) IIED; (7) violation of Civil Code, § 1942.4; and (8) constructive eviction.

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel enforcement of the Court order for complete and verified responses against Defendant Nuha Bakarat within 20 days and request for monetary sanctions of $3,735 against Defendant and her counsel of record.

Plaintiff moves to compel enforcement of the Court order compelling Defendant Nuha Barakat to provide complete and verified responses.

On June 30, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s answers to request for production of documents, set one (“RPD”) (filed May 26, 2023), which the Court deemed to be a motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 1-30. The Court found that Defendant had failed to comply with CCP § 2031.280(a) when producing the responses/documents. The Court also ordered Defendant to comply with CCP § 2031.280(d) for producing documents in electronic format. Thus, the Court granted the motion and ordered Defendant to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of the order and imposed $1,035 in sanctions against Defendant.[1]

In opposition, Defendant argues that this is an improper motion for reconsideration or motion to compel further responses, and that Defendant has already produced the documents requested on March 17, 2023 (prior to the motion to compel further hearing) and July 27, 2023 (after the motion to compel further hearing). Defense counsel James G. McCone states: “On March 21, 2023, my office provided verified responses to the discovery subject to the motions to compel. After receiving emails after the response was set[sic], I was led to believe that my office had not divided the responses into the various categories of requests, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.480. In July, 2023 when I promised to provide another complete response, I discovered that the documents had been appropriate[sic] divided, so I sent a full second copy of the discovery responses by Federal Express on July 27, 2023.” (McCone Decl., ¶5.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that he did not receive another copy of the responses in the mail and even if Defendant provided another copy, producing another “copy” of the documents was not in compliance with the Court’s June 30, 2023 order.

It is unclear what the nature of Defendant’s July 27, 2023 responses is—whether it is merely a copy of the March 17, 2023 responses or whether Defendant provided responses that complied with the requirement to identify which documents corresponded with each RPD request and whether Defendant complied with the code to produce documents in an electronic format. Defendant has not provided any proof of service or Federal Express documentation showing that supplemental responses were provided.

At this time, the Court cannot ascertain whether Defendant did or did not serve supplemental responses and whether the supplemental responses were in conformance with the Court’s June 30, 2023 order. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Defendant, Plaintiff has not cited a code section upon which he is relying upon to bring a motion to “enforce” the Court’s prior discovery order. If documents were in fact produced by Defendant on July 27, 2023, then the parties should meet and confer about the supplemental responses and Plaintiff should file a motion to compel further responses based on the new responses. If Defendant did not respond to the discovery at all, then Plaintiff may want to consider bringing a motion for discovery sanctions (i.e., evidence or issue sanctions) for the discovery that was not produced. However, at this time, Plaintiff has not stated a basis for the relief he is requesting. Defendant should also cooperate and re-serve the July 27, 2023 responses on Plaintiff and cooperate with Plaintiff’s counsel to provide the responses in compliance with the Court’s order. If the parties continue to have discovery issues, the parties may want to seek an informal discovery conference with the Court.

Plaintiff Yegishe Torosyan’s motion to compel enforcement of the Court order for complete and verified responses against Defendant Nuha Bakarat is tentatively denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is tentatively denied. The parties are ordered to attend the hearing on this matter in person and to bring paper copies of the responses they allege to be proper or improper.

The hearing will take place on April 19, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. The parties may postpone their appearances until 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. At that time, the Court will review the parties’ discovery responses.

[1] Plaintiff cites to Exhibits I and J of the declaration of Raffi Tepanian, stating that Plaintiff provided notice of the Court’s June 30, 2023 order to Defendant on June 30, 2023.

Exhibit I is an email dated June 30, 2023 from Plaintiff’s counsel stating that Plaintiff expects to receive monetary sanctions based on the Court’s February 10, 2023 and June 30, 2023 orders and Defendant’s further response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. It does not appear that the Court’s tentative or final order was attached.

Exhibit J is an email dated July 21, 2023 from Plaintiff’s counsel stating that he is attaching two courtesy copies of the writs of execution for monetary sanctions.

Neither of these emails appear to provide Defendant with the Court’s June 30, 2023 order.