Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV06149, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV06149, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06149 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 4/15/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 22STCV06149 NATALIE MOORE vs MELKON CHAMICHYAN

Motion: MOTIONS TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Melkon Chamichyan

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTIONS TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, ARE GRANTED.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Background

On October 2, 2023, Defendant served his special interrogatories, set one, and request for production, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve discovery responses by the statutory due date of November 3, 2023. Thereafter, Defendant provided Plaintiff several extensions, with February 12, 2024, as the last date to produce the discovery responses at issue. On February 7, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s former attorney's motion to be relieved as counsel. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff, who is now pro per, informed Defendant’s counsel that she had not received Defendant’s written discovery requests and was unaware of the pending written discovery that was propounded on October 2, 2023. On the same day, Defendant’s counsel sent a copy of the written discovery requests to Plaintiff via email and requested Plaintiff provide a date by which she would serve her verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. As of March 6, 2024, the date the present motions were filed, Defendant’s counsel had not received any response from Plaintiff. Consequently, Defendant now moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production, Set One, and for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard

1. Requests for Production and Interrogatories

A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party propounding the discovery requests may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to compel initial discovery responses does not have any meet and confer requirements.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿¿A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

It is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to timely serve the discovery responses at issue. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or show any indication that the discovery responses were provided before the hearing. Thus, the present motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide verified discovery responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, without objections within 20 days of today.

Sanctions

As for sanctions, The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also, e.g., Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

Defendant requested only terminating sanctions; however, The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Defendant did not present evidence of Plaintiff having prior sanctions, a history of discovery abuses, or a record of disobeying court orders. What the evidence does show is that plaintiff recently became pro per and is possibly handling her own lawsuit for the first time. This in itself weighs against terminating sanctions and it does not necessarily indicate a propensity for future discovery abuses. Obviously, if Plaintiff fails to comply with the orders contained herein, more severe sanctions, including terminating sanctions, may be warranted. But at this time, Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.