Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV36981, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36981    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

LAVRENTIY KAZARYAN, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

PETER AVSHALOMOV, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 21STCV36981

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 30, 2023

 

          On December 29, 2021, plaintiffs Lavrentiy Kazaryan and Onnik Kazanchian (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Peter Avshalomov (“Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident occurring on October 20, 2020.

          On September 1, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Kazaryan to request for production of documents. Plaintiff opposes.

          Legal Standard — Compel Further Responses

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

ANALYSIS

Timeliness

The Court finds that the motion is timely made. Defendant filed this motion based on the parties’ extension to September 1, 2022. (Colmey Decls., ¶8, Exh. E.) The Court also finds that moving Defendant has satisfied his obligation to meet and confer.

Requests for Production

          Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to request for production of documents, nos. 16, 17, and 21.

          Plaintiff provided further supplemental responses to the requests after the filing of this motion. Plaintiff’s separate statement in opposition incorporates the further responses, and Defendant’s reply indicates that the responses are still insufficient. The Court is unable to ascertain what documents were produced as Plaintiff’s further responses identify the documents but without specificity as to what they are. Upon review of the reply, the Court is still unable to ascertain exactly which documents were produced in response to the specific requests.

CONCLUSION

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to clarify what is at issue.  If the matter is still not resolved, the parties are ordered to provide a joint separate statement identifying in columns: the RFD in full, the nature of the objection, and Defendant’s response.   

The Court will hear from the parties to select a convenient date for the continued hearing.

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 30th day of January 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court