Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV45806, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV45806, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45806 Hearing Date: August 23, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: August 23, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 5, 2024

CASE: Delia Ramirez v. Mokhtar Zhoobin, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV45806

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Mokhtar Zhoobin

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 24, 2023, Defendant, Mokhtar Zhoobin, filed these motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents from Plaintiff, Delia Ramirez. Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record.

The motions are unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is 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.¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Sanctions against counsel:¿ The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) 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.)¿

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with the discovery requests on April 14, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel requested, and Defendant granted an extension to provide responses. Responses were due May 30, 2023. However, Plaintiffs have failed to serve responses.¿ (See Rickett Decls.)¿ Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demands for identification and inspection of documents are waived.¿¿

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents.¿

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff. Given the Court has granted these motions, sanctions are warranted. Pursuant to Hennings, supra, imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is also proper unless counsel shows that he or she did not counsel the discovery abuse.¿ (Hennings, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 81.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet their burden. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney of record in the amount of $519, consisting of 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $120 in filing fees.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motions are granted. Plaintiff Delia Ramirez is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents.¿

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff and her attorney of record are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the amount of $519 to Defendant, by and through their counsel.

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: August 23, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.