Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00222, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00222 Hearing Date: September 1, 2023 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
nasheka siddal, Plaintiff, v. jewish armenian
esq., Inc.,
et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: 23BBCV00222 Hearing Date: September 1, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motions to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions |
There are three
discovery motions on calendar. On August
8, 2023, Defendant Brian Kazarian filed two motions to compel initial responses
from Plaintiff Nasheka Siddal (“Plaintiff”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories
(“FROG”), set one; and (2) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents,
set one (“DIPD”). On August 8, 2023,
Defendant Jewish Armenian Esq., Inc. filed a motion to compel initial responses
from Plaintiff for DIPD, set one.
On March 17,
2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff the discovery requests, such that
responses were due by April 18, 2023. Defendants
state that Plaintiff did not seek an extension prior to the deadline. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s counsel
requested a four-week extension, which Defendants granted, such that responses
were due by May 25, 2023. They state
that on May 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a one-week extension,
making the responses due by June 1, 2023.
Defendants’ counsel then informed Plaintiff’s counsel that responses
without objection were due by June 16, 2023.
Plaintiff’s counsel then requested until June 30, 2023 and then July 10,
2023, which Defendants granted. As of
the filing of the motions, Defendants state that they have not received responses
from Plaintiff.
On August 18,
2023, Plaintiff filed opposition briefs.
Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s counsel had requested another
extension on July 10, 2023, but Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff then states that responses were
served on August 17, 2023.
As responses
have been provided, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses are
denied as moot.
Defendants seek
$935 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for filing each of the motions (=
1.5 hour on the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the opposition/reply and
attending the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees). Plaintiff argues that sanctions are not
warranted because Plaintiff has served responses and Defendants have not
suffered any prejudice for the belated responses as trial is set for September
3, 2024. The Court will award the
requested sanctions, but suspend them at this time as Plaintiff has now served
responses and this appears to be the first set of discovery issues between the
parties. If there are further delays in
responding to discovery, the Court will be inclined to impose sanctions against
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, and to remove the suspension of these
sanctions.
Defendants shall provide
notice of this order.