Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV14275, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANTS SANJIV K. JAIN AND SHUBHA M. JAIN

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANTS SANJIV K. JAIN AND SHUBHA M. JAIN

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PROUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM SANJIV K. JAIN AND SHUBHA M. JAIN

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. filed six discovery motions: two (2) motions to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain; two (2) motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain; and two (2) motions to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents from Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants.[1]

If a party to whom interrogatories or 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).)

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿

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, 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).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

It is undisputed Plaintiff served Defendants with the at-issue discovery on January 4, 2022. Responses were due on February 4, 2022. After Defendants failed to serve responses, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer about the outstanding discovery responses. However, to date, Defendants have not provided discovery responses or responded to Plaintiff’s attempt to meet and confer. (See Levinson Decls.) Accordingly, all objections to the discovery requests are waived.¿ Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to the interrogatories and production requests.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain.¿ Given that Defendants have not provided responses to discovery propounded over eight months ago, or even responded to Plaintiff’s attempt to meet and confer, the court finds sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed as follows: against Defendant Sanjiv K. Jain in the sum of $844.95, consisting of three hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $184.95 in filing fees; and against Defendant Shubha M. Jain in the amount of $844.95 consisting of 3 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $184.95 in filing fees.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Defendants Sanjiv K. Jain and Shubha M. Jain are ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants is GRANTED. Defendant Sanjiv K. Jain is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $844.95 to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant Shubha M. Jain is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $844.95 to Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel. ¿

Discovery responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be provided within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The court notes the captions of the motions indicate Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record. However, because the notice of motion states only that Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants, the court considers the request as to Defendants only. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)