Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 22STLC07519, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07519, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07519 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Tuesday, April 09, 2024

Case Name: BRANT SILVIA, an individual; MANLEY THOMAS, an individual; and TERRELL JOHNSON, an individual v. PARVIS SHARAF, an individual; and DOES 1-10

Case No.: 22STLC07519

Motion: Motion to Compel Defendant Parvis Sharaf’s Responses to Request for Production for Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; Motion to Compel Defendant Parvis Sharaf's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Manley Thomas

Responding Party: Defendant Parvis Sharaf

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Manley Thomas’ Motion to Compel Defendant Parvis Sharaf’s Responses to Request for Production for Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Thomas’s Motion to Compel Defendant Parvis Sharaf's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Manely Thomas' Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED, in part, in the amount of $1,074.77 for each motion.

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF MANLEY THOMAS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 AND 2 WITH CODE COMPLIANT, OBJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF MANLEY THOMAS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NO. 1-6 WITH CODE COMPLIANT, OBJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

DEFENDANT IS ADDITIONALLY ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFF MANLEY THOMAS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,074.77 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed as of March 26, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed late as of April 03, 2024 [X] Late [ ] None

BACKGROUND

On November 08, 2022, Plaintiffs Brant Silvia (“Silvia”), Manley Thomas (“Thomas”), and Terrell Johnson (“Johnson”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Parvis Sharaf (“Sharaf”) for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) general negligence, (4) maintenance of nuisance, and (5) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

Defendant Sharaf filed his Answer to the Complaint on January 20, 2023.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Silvia filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions. On August 11 and 16, 2023, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration of Peter Marantz in response.

On August 28, 2023, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to September 13, 2023. On September 13, 2023, the Court instructed Silvia to file a revised separate statement that reflects the most recent responses served by Defendants, explaining why these responses remained incomplete and permitted no other papers. On September 26, 2023, Silvia filed his amended separate statement. The Court granted Silvia’s motion and ordered Sharaf to pay $1,461.65 in monetary sanctions.

On March 07, 2024, Silvia amended Plaintiff’s complaint to name PSDS Investment Corporation (“PSDS”) for Doe 1 as a Defendant to the action.

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Thomas filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production for Documents Propounded on Defendant; Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One Propounded on Defendant; and Requests for Monetary Sanctions.

Defendant files in opposition to the motion. Thomas files in reply.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Thomas prays for the Court to issue an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to both Thomas’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents Set One under CCP §§ 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b). Thomas asserts that Defendant and his counsel have failed to timely respond to his discovery requests thereby necessitating the motions. Thomas additionally requests that the Court award $474.77 in monetary sanctions for each motion under CCP §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) for the sum of one hour spent by Thomas’s counsel preparing the instant motions at a rate of $400.00 per hour plus $74.77 in court costs.

OPPOSITION

In opposition, Sharaf argues that the motions should be denied because Thomas has failed to meet the statutory elements by not providing a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040. Sharaf further asserts that he has complied with Thomas’s document requests without objection and that sanctions are unjustified considering the miscommunication between the parties regarding the meet and conferral.

REPLY

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that the discovery responses are incomplete and that there is no meet and confer requirement when no responses have been served. Plaintiff specifically points out that responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-6 and Plaintiff’s RFPs Nos. 1 and 2 are incomplete, ambiguous, and evasive. Plaintiff also requests further sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for each motion for additional attorney time spent reviewing the late discovery responses and preparing its reply.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

II. Discussion

A. Motion Compelling Responses to Thomas’s Special Interrogatories and Request for Production

Plaintiff Thomas moves to compel Defendant to serve responses to Thomas’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One. In opposition, Sharaf claims that Thomas’s motion should be denied as Thomas has not complied with statutory elements under 2031.310 and that Sharaf has already provided responses to Thomas’s discovery request. Noting that the motions essentially provide the same facts, the Court will address both motions together in this order.

As a preliminary matter, to the extent Defendant argues the Motion must be denied because Thomas did not properly meet and confer, the Court is not persuaded. As noted above, no meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel initial responses. Sharaf has not cited any legal authority demonstrating otherwise. Moreover, Thomas does provide a meet and conferral declaration through Latoya S. Reed who states that she wrote an email correspondence to defense counsel on February 26, 2024. (Latoya S. Reed, Esq. ¶ 2; Exh B.) Ms. Reed further states that Defense counsel responded that he sent responses. (Id.) Thus, the Court moves now to the merits of the motion.

Thomas provides his own sworn declaration, in which he states that on January 19, 2024, he served both his Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One, on Defendant. (Manley Thomas Decl. ¶ 3; Exh A.) Thomas declares that he and other Plaintiffs only received miscellaneous documents with a letter from defense counsel dated February 23, 2024, three days past the due date for responses. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. C) As of March 11, 2024, Thomas avers that he has yet to receive responses to his discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Sharaf provides the declaration of his counsel who states that on March 26, 2024, he served Defendant’s responses to all of Thomas’s discovery requests. (Hamid Soleimanian Decl. ¶ 2.; Exh. A.)

The Court notes that the responses are verified, however, they are untimely. Responses are to be served 30 days after personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) Here, responses should have been served by February 19, 2024, the latest being March 08, 2024, noting Thomas’s extension. Sharaf’s counsel did not serve his verified responses until March 26, 2024.

Here, the Court finds that although Defendant has provided the requested responses since Plaintiff’s motions were filed, Plaintiff has submitted support through its reply and separate statements indicating their insufficiency. A motion to compel may be heard even if tardy responses are served after the motion is filed. (7. [8:1136] Motion to Compel Answers:, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8F-7). Ordinarily, if there is any issue regarding the sufficiency of the responses, then such issue must be addressed via a motion to compel further responses. However, based on Plaintiff’s moving papers, Defendants’ responses to the Special Interrogatories and Request for Production remain insufficient, and the Court may compel further answers. As the court in Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants noted “If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, …the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required,[141 or order the propounding party to "meet and confer" (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.” (148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 408-409.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s requests to compel responses to the interrogatories and request for production are GRANTED.

B. Sanctions

The Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) provides in relevant part that,

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [Section 2023.010] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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., § 2030.290(c).) CCP section 2031.300(c) similarly provides the same remedy when a party fails to respond to a demand for production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) A court may still award sanctions for the failure to timely respond to discovery requests despite an opposing parties’ attempt to serve tardy responses after the motion has been filed Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 CA4th at 410-411.)

Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions for each motion in the amount of $474.00 for one hour of attorney time preparing at $400 per hour, plus $74.77 for the filing fees. In addition, in Plaintiff’s reply, he requests an additional $1,000 in sanctions for each motion for 2.5 hours of attorney time representing two hours in reviewing the discovery served and filing the reply and accompanying separate statements plus an anticipated 0.5 hours for preparation and appearance for the hearing. The Court finds the hourly rate to be reasonable but does not find that time spent reviewing the responses should be included for sanctions. As such, the Court awards a total of 2.5 hours of attorney time plus costs for each motion in the amount of $1,074.77.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Manley Thomas’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production for Documents Propounded on Defendant is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Thomas’ Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One Propounded on Defendant is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Thomas' Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED, in part, in the amount of $1,074.77 for each motion.

DEFENDANT IS ADDITIONALLY ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFF MANELY THOMAS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,074.77 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.