Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV19488, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19488    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 9/20/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV19488 GILBERT GUERRERO vs FRANKLIN VLADIMIR LOPEZ ALAS, et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Ofer Saha

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: PLAINTIFF”S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER IS DENIED; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED 

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff Gilbert Guerrero served Defendant Ofer Saha with Form Interrogatories, Set Three. On March 5, 2024, Defendant served his responses to the discovery requests at issue. Despite efforts to meet and confer, the parties were unable to resolve their discovery issues. Plaintiff now moves the court to compel further responses to his Form Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

Defendant contends that on June 26, 2024, the parties met and conferred further and Defendant agreed to provide amended responses without objections to the discovery requests at issue. Defendant alleges that on July 16, 2024, that the amended responses were served on Plaintiff. Upon reviewing the amended responses (Exhibit A), the Court notes that on July 16, 2024, the amended responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Three, were indeed served.  The responses did not contain any objections, were verified and were responsive.  Thus, the present motions are denied.

Defendant also attached an email communication with Plaintiff’s counsel in which Defendant informed counsel of the amended responses after the present motion was filed. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Defendant asking Defendant to re-send the amended discovery responses, which Defendant provided on the same day. However, this motion was not withdrawn or taken off calendar, and as a result, Defendant filed an opposition informing the court of the amended responses.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(d) the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes 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.

Here, Defendant sent the amended responses to Plaintiff on August 16, 2024; there was ample time for Plaintiff to examine the responses and realize that the motion filed concerned a set of discovery responses that were moot, and should have therefore been taken off the calendar. However, Plaintiff failed to do so. Consequently, Defendant incurred attorneys' fees by opposing the motion and informing the court of the amended responses. Defendant requests $1,540 in attorney’s fees, which the court finds reasonable. Therefore, sanctions are hereby ordered against Plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $1,500, payable to Defendant within 20 days.

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.