Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV08755, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV08755, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08755 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE: February 13, 2024 TRIAL DATE: February 19, 2025

CASE: Artemio Aguilar v. Monica Guyumdzhyan, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV08755

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Monica Guyumdzhyan and Christi Mkhsyan

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a consolidated case arising out a motor vehicle collision that occurred on July 14, 2021.

On March 10, 2022, Artemio Aguilar (“Aguilar”) initiated this lead case against Monica Guyumdzhyan (“Guyumdzhyan”), Christi Mkhsyan (“Mkhsyan”) and Does 1 to 50 asserting one cause of action for negligence.

On April 27, 2022, Guyumdzhyan initiated case number 22STCV13945 against Aguilar alleging causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle.

On January 26, 2023, Tiroui Simonyan initiated case number 23VECV00353 against Aguilar alleging causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle.

On October 1, 2023, the Court ordered the cases consolidated.

On December 28, 2023, Guyumdzhyan and Mkhsyan (collectively, “Movants”) filed the instant three motions to compel Aguilar’s response to their Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Specially Prepared Interrogatories (collectively, the “Discovery Requests”). Movants also request sanctions.

As of February 7, 2024, the motions are unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Within 30 days after service” of a demand for inspection or interrogatories, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery unless the court has shortened or extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a); 2031.260, subd. (a).)

Failure to serve timely responses to demands for inspection and interrogatories results in the responding party waiving any objection to the discovery requests, including those based on privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (a); 2030.290, subd. (a).)

If a party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the party making the demand or propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Monetary Sanctions

If the court finds that a party has “unsuccessfully made or opposed” a motion to compel discovery responses, the court “shall impose a monetary sanctions . . . 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).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030 grants the Court discretion to impose sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process.” Under Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, making unmeritorious objections or evasive responses to discovery and failing to confer with opposing counsel to attempt to resolve discovery disputes informally.¿

If sanctions are sought, Code Civ. Proc. § 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.¿¿

III. DISCUSSION

Counsel for Movants served Aguilar with the Discovery Requests on September 19, 2023. (Eisaeian Decls., ¶2, Exhs. A.) The Court has reviewed the requests attached to counsel’s declarations and finds they seek relevant information.

Aguilar’s responses to those requests were due on October 23, 2023. (Mtn., 3:8-9.) On October 31, 2023, counsel for Movants asked that Aguilar provide verified answers to the Requests by November 3, 2023. (Eisaeian Decls., Exh. B.) Thereafter, at the request of Aguilar’s counsel, the deadline was extended to December 8. (Id.)

To date, movants’ counsel has not received Aguilar’s responses to the Discovery Requests. Therefore, all objections to the Requests are waived.¿

Aguilar has not opposed these motions. California Rules of Court Rule 8.54(c) provides that a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.

As Movants properly served the Discovery Requests and Aguilar failed to serve timely responses and did not oppose these motions, Movants are entitled to an order directing Aguilar to provide verified, objection-free responses to the Discovery Requests.¿

Monetary Sanctions

Movants request sanctions against Aguilar.

Sanctions are discretionary under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2023.010, and 2023.030.

Movants request sanctions of $455.34 for each of the three discovery motions, consisting of two hours of attorney’s fees to meet and confer, review the motion and declaration and appear at the hearing, at $160.17 per hour; plus one hour of legal assistant time to reserve the hearing and draft the motion, at $75 per hour, plus a $60 motion filing fee. (Eisaeian Decls., ¶5.)

Because each of the three motions are straightforward and in many respects duplicative of one another, the Court will reduce the requested sanctions and order sanctions in the amount of $900.

IV. CONCLUSION

The unopposed motions are granted. Artemio Aguilar is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Monica Guyumdzhyan and Christi Mkhsyan’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 20 days of the date of this order.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $900.00 to Movants’ counsel, Mark R. Weiner & Associates within 20 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: February 13, 2024 ___________________________________

Lee S. Arian

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.