SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On August 10, 2018, plaintiff Asmik Abgaryan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Daniel Harrell (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) motor vehicle.  

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  

On August 1, 2022, Defendant filed their opposition to the motion.  

On August 22, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the motion. The Court noted that the Seventh Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective May 16, 2022, requires parties to engage in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) before bringing their motions to compel further discovery responses. However, no IDC had been held concerning the instant motion. Therefore, the Court stayed the hearing for the motion and ordered Plaintiff to schedule an IDC.  

On December 21, 2022, the Court held an IDC. The Court noted that the discovery issue had not yet been resolved, lifted the stay, and scheduled the motion for hearing on February 1, 2023.  

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a new notice for the motion.  

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s opposition that was filed on August 1, 2022.  

In his reply, Plaintiff (1) concedes that Defendant served the responses to his Special Interrogatories that were at issue, and (2) confirms that the only issue remaining in the instant motion is Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against the Defendant. (Reply, p. 2:17-23.) 

On January 19, 2023, Defendant filed a Supplemental Brief in opposition. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s pursuit for sanctions is unjustified because Plaintiff decided to file the motion without making a good faith efforts to resolve the matter (e.g., before scheduling an IDC) and by refusing to an honor the extension given to Defendant to serve supplemental responses. (Supplemental Brief, p. 3:13-27.) 

A non-jury trial is set for May 24, 2023.  

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) 

The motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1)) and, unless ordered otherwise by the court, a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)). “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) 

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, § 2030.300, subd. (c).) 

III. DISCUSSION  

The parties agree that the only issue remaining is their mutual request for monetary sanctions against each other, in connection with Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, § 2030.300, subd. (d).) 

Plaintiff seeks $810 in sanctions against the Defendant. (Notice of Motion, filed July 22, 2022, p. 2:3-9; Reply, filed January 17, 2023, p. 5:11-13.) The amount consists of a $60 filing fee, plus $750 in attorney’s fees (for 3 hours Plaintiff’s counsel spent on the moving papers, at a billing rate of $250 per hour). (Motion, filed July 22, 2022, declaration of Kaveh Keshmiri, ¶ 8.)  

Defendant argues that imposition of sanctions would be unjust because Plaintiff (among other things) filed the instant motion (1) without requesting an IDC and (2) before the deadline he gave the Defendant to serve supplemental responses expired. (Opposition, filed January 19, 2023, p. 6:10-15.) 

Indeed, the Court notes that on July 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel told defense counsel: “Please supplement your response by the same deadline: Monday, July 25th.” (Opposition, filed on January 19, 2023, declaration of Varduhi Rose Petrosyan (“Petrosyan”), ¶ 11; Exhibit 4, p. 1 – the email at the top of the page.) However, on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the motion even though he had agreed to give the Defendant until July 25, 2022, to serve the supplemental responses. (Petrosyan Decl., ¶ 12; (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d) [providing that a court may take judicial notice of court records].) 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in light of defense counsel’s undisputed declaration that Plaintiff agreed to give the Defendant until July 25, 2022, to serve supplemental responses, but chose to file the motion before that date. In addition, Plaintiff did not seek an IDC as required before filing this motion. Lastly, Defendant has already produced the supplemental responses for the interrogatories at issue. Given those facts, the Court finds imposing sanctions on the Defendant would be unjust.  

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions of $612.50, against Plaintiff, for misuse of the discovery process. (Opposition, filed August 1, 2022, p. 2:1-2.) 

The Court denies the Defendant’s request for sanctions.  

For the reasons set forth above, the parties’ requests for sanctions is denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff Asmik Abgaryan’s Motion to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions is DENIED in its entirety.  

Defendant Daniel Harrell’s request for monetary sanctions against the plaintiff is also DENIED. 

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’s 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 1st day of February 2023