Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV23707, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

On July 22, 2022, Mariya Chernyavskaya (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angeles (“City of LA”), California Department of Transportation (“CDT”), Onyx Tower LLC. (“Onyx”), and Does 1 to 50 (collectively, “Defendants”) arising out of a fall on November 4, 2021. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

On September 15, 2023, Defendant LACMTA filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Requests for Production of Documents; Defendant also moved for sanctions for each motion to compel.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to each motion, contending that she provided discovery responses, albeit late. She contends that Defendant should have withdrawn its motions given that she provided responses and now requests her own sanctions.

On November 27, 2023, Defendant LACMTA filed a Reply to each Opposition. It argues that Plaintiff’s late responses do not absolve her of responsibility to pay sanctions.

Thus, these motions come down to the issue of sanctions, as now the issue of responses, at least in relation to initial responses, has been resolved. Both parties seek sanctions against the other.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct. Here, the late responses after motions had to be filed to obtain responses, particularly after Plaintiff was provided with multiple extensions, is appropriately deemed a “misuse of the discovery process.” Plaintiff seeks to excuse her failure to abide by the discovery process because she does not have technological access and because of her age. Those arguments are unpersuasive: she was able, despite her age and lack of technological access, to bring this action. Upon bringing it, she is responsible for abiding by the rules – those rules apply equally to all litigants.

Frankly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because Defendant refused to take the motions off calendar is the height of “chutzpah.” She failed to respond timely, forced Defendant to bring motions and now seeks sanctions because Defendant then refused to take the motions off calendar so that Defendant could be reimbursed for expenses Plaintiff caused it to incur. In a word: ridiculous!

Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, are hereby ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant in the reasonable amount of $1,800, for the cost of having to bring three different motions and then reply to oppositions, which instead should have been simple arguments against sanctions (or, even more appropriately, arguments to reduce sanctions) rather than requests for sanctions, after having been provided with multiple extensions to provide responses. Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court