Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV1539, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV1539, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV1539 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 5/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 22STCV15399 JULIAN HART vs VARTAN DARBINYAN

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATOIRES, SET ONE. MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant Tigran Kazarian

Responding Party: Defendant Vartan Darbinyan

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ARE ADMITTED AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED

Background

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present complaint for premises liability against Defendants Tigran Kazarian and Vartan Darbinyan. On November 20, 2022, Defendant Tigran Kazarian filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Vartan Darbinyan for indemnity. On July 31, 2023, Kazarian propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admissions, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, to Darbinyan. The statutory due date for the discovery requests were September 1, 2023. The parties have been in communication, and Kazarian granted Darbinyan numerous extensions, with the final due date set for December 22, 2023. As of March 25, 2024, Kazarian has yet to receive the discovery responses at issue and now moves the court to compel. No opposition has been filed.

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.)

2. Request for Admissions

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”¿ CCP § 2033.010.¿ “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared ....”¿ CCP § 2033.250(a).

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. CCP § 2033.280(a). The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. CCP § 2033.280(b). The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to deem RFA admitted does not have any meet and confer requirements.

Analysis

It is undisputed that Vartan Darbinyan failed to serve the required discovery responses before the statutory deadline. Despite multiple extensions granted by Tigran Kazarian and ongoing communication between the parties, Darbinyan still failed to provide the discovery responses. Moreover, Darbinyan did not file an opposition or any other filing showing that the discovery responses were served before the hearing date. Consequently, Kazarian's motions are GRANTED.

The Court hereby orders Vartan Darbinyan to provide complete responses to Tigran Kazarian's Request for Production, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, without raising objections, within 20 days of today. Additionally, the contents of Tigran Kazarian’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

Darbinyan’s failure to respond forced Kazarian to incur attorney’s fees by filing the present motions. Kazarian requests sanctions in the amount of $520 per motion and $2080 in total, which the Court finds reasonable. Consequently, the Court sanctions Defendant Darbinyan and his counsel in the amount of $2080. Defendant Darbinyan and his counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $2080 to Kazarian within 20 days of today’s date.

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.