On December 29, 2021, plaintiffs Lavrentiy Kazaryan (“Kazaryan”) and Onnik Kazanchian filed this action against defendant Peter Avshalomov (“Defendant”) 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, nos. 16, 17, and 21.  On January 30, 2023, the Court continued the hearing.  In the January 30, 2023 minute order, the Court noted that Kazaryan provided further supplemental responses to the requests after the filing of this motion, which Kazaryan incorporated in his separate statement in opposition.  However, the Court stated it was unable to ascertain what documents were produced as Kazaryan’s further responses identify documents without specificity as to what they are.  The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to clarify what is at issue.  If the matter remained unresolved, the parties were ordered to file a joint separate statement no later than February 16, 2023, identifying in columns: the RFD in full, the nature of the objection, and Defendant’s response.   

On February 16, 2023, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration with a proposed joint statement.  In her declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that the parties met and conferred by telephone on February 10, 2023 but could not reach an agreement.  Defendant’s counsel further states that she prepared a joint statement and emailed it to Kazaryan’s counsel on February 14, 2023.  However, Kazaryan’s counsel did not respond.  No opposition has been filed.   

As a threshold matter, because Kazaryan has failed to comply with the Court’s Order to file a joint statement with Defendant, the Court considers the joint statement filed by Defendant in the disposition of this Motion. 

2031.310, parties may move for a further response to requests for production of documents where a statement of compliance is incomplete or where a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.  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).) 

The Code of Civil Procedure contemplates three forms of proper responses to a request for production:  a statement of compliance in full or in part (CCP § 2031.220); a statement of inability to comply (CCP § 2031.230); and a partial objection coupled with a statement of compliance or representation of inability to comply (CCP § 2031.240).   

A statement of compliance under section 2031.220 has two parts: (1) the responding party “shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part,” and (2) “that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” 

A representation of inability to comply under section 2031.230 has three parts: the statement must (1) affirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply, and (2) the statement shall specify whether the inability to comply is because “the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”  The third part comes into play if the responding party knows or believes someone else has possession of the documents:  if so, “[t]he statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” 

Finally, California 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).)   

a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.   

With regard to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) provides that sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. 

Sanctions against counsel:  The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party: 

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party's attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)  “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party's misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party's attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney's actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney's advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.) 

subdivision E of the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts for the County of Los Angeles, Central District (“Eighth Amended Hub Order”), Personal Injury (“PI”) Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery. 

After meeting and conferring about available dates for an IDC, the moving/propounding party shall reserve an IDC through [the Court Reservation System (“CRS”)] and provide notice of the reserved IDC to the opposing/responding party by filing and serving an Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (LASC CIV 239) at least 15 court days before the IDC and attach the CRS reservation receipt as the last page.  The IDC will not be “scheduled” by the court until the IDC Form is filed.  The opposing/responding party may file and serve a responsive IDC Form at least 10 court days before the IDC.  All parties shall briefly set forth their respective positions on the pending discovery issues on the IDC Form. 

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).)  “[T]he clock on a motion to compel begins to run once ‘verified responses’ or ‘supplemental verified responses’ are served.”  (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)¿ When responses to interrogatories are a combination of unverified responses and objections, the clock begins to run only when the verifications are served.  (Id. at p. 136.)  “Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and¿the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.  If any such paper has not previously been served upon the party to be notified and was not filed by him, a copy of such paper must accompany the notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.)  Thus, the notice must include the interrogatories at issue and supporting law. 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).)   

A. Procedural Matters:  Defendant’s motion is timely, and Defendant 

complied with its IDC obligations.   

B.  Substantive Matters:   

Requests for Production 

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

RPD No. 16 requests “All WRITINGS and DOCUMENTS authored by any PERSON, employer, or company records if self-employed, for YOU which purport to set forth any wages, salary, and/or income, or any DAMAGES of any kind YOU claimed to have been lost as a result of the INCIDENT.”  

In response, Plaintiff initially provided a plethora of objections. Plaintiff’s last supplemental response provided the following documents:  

Plaintiff states that he opened WeHo Collision Center about 9 months before the collision.  Plaintiff started transferring ownership of the company to David Pastor beginning February 2021.  The purchase price for WeHo Collision Center was negotiated to $200,000.00 (KAZARYAN 0144).  However, Responding Party and Pastor agreed that all funds would be used to pay WeHo Collision Center’s rent and bills that had accumulated after the October 20, 2020 collision due to Plaintiffs injuries.  All the funds from the purchase price were used to pay WeHo Collision Center's rent and bills.  Responding Party was left with nothing from the sale and all funds were paid towards rent and bills that Plaintiff should have paid.  Plaintiff did not keep the funds from the purchase price.  David Pastor also offered Responding Party an opportunity to work with WeHo Collision Center after the transfer of ownership.  Even though Responding Party was still in pain, he hoped he could handle the reduced responsibility (KAZARYAN 0157- KAZARYAN 0158).  He was allowed to be hopeful about his pain.  He was hoping to remain with the company since David Pastor had presented him with an employment opportunity and contract. He even tried to work a couple of hours a day after the sale.  For those hours he was paid $400.00 (KAZARYAN 0143), which a check was produced.  The employment agreement which was never signed by both parties and not produced previously since Responding Party did not consider a contract not signed by the other party to be legally binding.  During Plaintiffs ownership of WeHo Collision Center, he maintained all records regarding WeHo Collision Center’s income and wages digitally.  He maintained records on DropBox, Adobe, Gmail, Google Docs, Quickbooks and iCloud.  After ownership of WeHo Collision Center was transferred, David Pastor took over the accounts. Responding Party has requested these documents from WeHo Collision Center and David Pastor, but he has not been provided with additional documents. Responding Party has tried the “forgot username and forgot password” options at Chase, DropBox, Adobe, Gmail, Google Docs, Quickbooks and iCloud websites but the username retrieval and password reset are sent to the Gmail account that Responding Party does not have access to anymore.  Responding Party has tried to access Chase, DropBox, Adobe, Gmail, Google Docs, Quickbooks and iCloud by contacting their customer service providers but Responding Party could not verify the identity information to be granted access.  

In response, Plaintiff initially provided a plethora of objections.  Plaintiff’s last supplemental response states: “Responding Party has made diligent search and reasonable inquiry into all documents in his possession at this time and produces responsive documents attached here to and identified as KAZARYAN 0104 - KAZARYAN 0113.  Responding Party has not been examined or treated by any other health care providers within 10 years prior to the INCIDENT.”  

Defendant argues that Plaintiff identifies documents that are not responsive, because the documents produced are from physician visits on February 12, 2021 and April 30, 2021, which is after this accident.  This request seeks documents from health care providers for ten years before the accident regarding injections for any reason. 

However, Plaintiff states that he has not been examined or treated by any other health care providers within 10 years prior to the incident.  That answers the question. It is unclear what more Defendant is seeking from Plaintiff.  The motion is DENIED as to No. 21. 

C.  Sanctions:  Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  In addition to granting the motion with respect to Questions 16 and 17, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel’s failed to respond to the separate statement.