SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff served Request for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant ADA Enterprises, Inc., and Request for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Artyom Mnatsakanyan. Plaintiff alleges on April 19, 2024, and after obtaining a couple of extensions, Defendant responded with objections and failed to provide code-compliant, verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests. Defendant has yet to serve a verification and Plaintiff now moves to compel initial responses.  

Because Defendants provided timely responses consisting only of objections, the responses need not be verified. (CCP § 2033.240(a).) Furthermore, because objections were served, should Plaintiff challenge the validity of the objections, the proper motion would be a motion to compel further responses rather than a motion to deem the requests admitted or a motion to compel initial responses. Defense counsel has also indicated that Defendants intend to serve substantive responses to the discovery requests at issue prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the motions to compel are denied. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied because his motion is denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also denied because its objections were boilerplate in nature, thereby justifying Plaintiff’s filing of the motions. 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSTION 

Plaintiff also moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Artyom Mnatsakanyan. Defendant apparently concedes that there is good cause for the deposition, as a deposition date was confirmed two days after the motion was filed. As defendant’s deposition has been pending since July 2024, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and orders Defendant to appear for deposition within 10 days of today. 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, as Defendant acted with substantial justification. Throughout the parties’ communications, the parties agreed that a deposition date would be provided if the matter was not resolved. During the time Plaintiff noticed the deposition, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations. Once it became apparent that the case would not settle, defense counsel provided a deposition date. Under these circumstances, Defendant’s conduct was reasonable and does not warrant sanctions. The Court also denies Defendant’s request for sanctions, as the deposition date was not provided until after Plaintiff filed the motion. 

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’s 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.