Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV14065, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14065    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff James Bowers (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Arman Taverdyan, Marina Zakarian F-Taverdyan, Fredrik Taverdyan, and ITT Marketing (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.  On October 19, 2022 Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff.  Having received no responses, Defendants proceeded to file this motion compelling Plaintiff to provide responses.   Defendants also request monetary sanctions.

          Improper Filing

          Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.  (See Govt. Code § 70617(a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing); see also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) (“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”)) 

As a preliminary matter, Defendants improperly filed a single motion to compel responses for two separate discovery requests.  Defendants were required to file two separate motions.

Thus, Defendants are ordered to pay $60, which is the missing fee that they would have paid if they had filed the motions properly.

Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff has failed to comply with his discovery obligation.  Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel responses is GRANTED. 

/ / /

/ / /

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff, in the amount of $847.50. for 4.5 hours at Defendants’ counsel’s hourly rate of $175.00 plus $60.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

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