Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01563, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01563    Hearing Date: July 5, 2024    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

houman fatehi,

 

                        Plaintiff.

            v.

 

hugo k. varela,

 

                        Defendant.

 

Case No.: 23BBCV01563

 

  Hearing Date:  July 5, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions

 

 

On June 6, 2024, Defendant Hugo K. Varela (“Defendant”) filed 2 motions to compel initial responses from Plaintiff Houman Fatehi (“Plaintiff”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; and (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  

On October 16, 2023, Defendant served on Plaintiff the discovery requests, such that responses were due by November 20, 2023.  Plaintiff requested and Defendant granted multiple extension such that responses were due by January 5, 2024.  On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel provided “Draft” response to the FROG and unverified RPD responses, and stated that he planned to provide “verifications” by the following week.  Defense counsel then sent follow-up emails and tried to meet and confer about verified responses.  As of the filing of the motions, Defendant states that it has not received responses from Plaintiff. 

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed opposition briefs.  Plaintiff states that he served complete, verified responses on defense counsel on June 20, 2024, such that the motions are now moot and the only remaining issue is sanctions. 

Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG and RPD are denied as moot, in light of Plaintiff’s service of verified responses. 

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $1,235 for the FROG motion and $1,000 for the RPD motion.  Plaintiff argues that because the responses he initially served on February 5, 2024 (without verifications) were essentially identical to the ones served on June 20, 2024, the Court should relieve Plaintiff from the waiver of objections and impose only nominal sanctions or an admonishment.  At this time, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request for a waiver from providing objections as Plaintiff has not separately filed a noticed motion for such relief.  The Court is hopeful that the objections will not be material in this case. The Court will impose sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the reasonable sum of $500, plus $120 in filing fees.  Although Plaintiff ultimately provided responses and verifications prior to the hearing on this matter, Plaintiff’s initial responses were not code compliant as they were not verified and unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,120 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

 

 

DATED: July 5, 2024                                                 ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court