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). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[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
|