Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00878, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00878    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Erica Denise Dabney (“Plaintiff”) filed a single motion to compel initial responses from Defendants Alen’s Auto Care & Sales, Arman Shahgaldyan, and Alen Marsign Stepanian (“Defendants”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; and (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  

On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff served on Defendants the discovery requests.  Plaintiff’s counsel, Jorge Hechavarria, states that on April 30, 2022, defense counsel Arno H. Keshishian requested an extension, which Plaintiff granted until May 25, 2022.  (Hechavarria Decl., ¶¶4-5.)  When Mr. Hechavarria did not receive responses, he notified Mr. Keshishian on May 27, 2022, and Mr. Keshishian requested a new deadline until June 8, 2022 as a result of an issue with one of his employees.  (Id., ¶¶7-8.)  Mr. Hechavarria states that he sent emails and called Mr. Keshishian about his intention to file a motion to compel.  (Id., ¶¶9-11.)  On June 9, 2022, Mr. Keshishian stated he would have an update by June 15, 2022.  (Id., ¶12.)  Mr. Hechavarria states that he emailed Mr. Keshisian for an update on the discovery on June 16, 2022 and on June 21, 2022, Mr. Keshishian asked for his availability to discuss discovery and represented he would complete discovery that evening.  (Id., ¶¶13-14.)  Mr. Hechavarria states that he did not receive any further correspondence from Mr. Keshishian.  (Id., ¶14.)  As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff states that she has not received responses from Defendants. 

On August 8, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition brief.  Defendants acknowledge that they were required to produce responses and state that they had no ill-will or malice in their failure to respond.  They explain their failure to respond was due to internal issues within defense counsel’s firm.  Defense counsel Arno H. Keshishian states that on May 23, 2022, the attorney handling this case abruptly left the office and stated he would not be returning, Mr. Keshishian was alone preparing for a dozen cases and had trials in August and September, and he hired temporary assistance.  (Keshishian Decl., ¶¶8-1.)  Defendants argue that they intend to provide responses prior to the hearing. 

The Court is not in receipt of a reply brief.  There is also no indication from Defendants that further responses were provided.  As it does not appear that responses have yet been provided, Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300.  Defendants are ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. 

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants and their attorney in the amount of $3,673.51 (=$400/hour x [6 hours spent on the motion + 3 anticipated hours], plus $73.51 filing fees).  Defendants argue that sanctions are not appropriate at this time because defense counsel was not attempting to misuse the discovery process, there was no ill will or malice, and the past few months have been some of counsel’s most difficult and stressful time of his life.  (See Opp. at p.6.)  While the circumstances explained by Mr. Keshishian are unfortunate, Defendants still owed a discovery obligation to Plaintiff and Plaintiff was more than generous in providing numerous extensions.  Further, Mr. Keshishian was on notice of the outstanding discovery since Mr. Hechavarria was in constant communication with Mr. Keshishian about the discovery via email and phone calls.  As such, the Court will award sanctions in favor of Plaintiff, but in a reduced amount of $1,573.51 (= a reasonable rate of $300/hour for this relatively simple motion to compel x 5 hours, plus $73.51).  Sanctions will only be imposed against defense counsel as it appears that the delay in providing discovery was not the fault of counsel’s clients. Defendants’ counsel is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,573.51 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.