Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV44260, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44260 Hearing Date: January 29, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Brionna Dreer (“Brionna Dreer”) filed this action against Defendants Behrooz Rostam (“Rostam”), Black & White Car Rental, Burton Way Investments LLC, and Does 1-100 for negligence and negligence per se.
On February 25, 2022, Defendants Burton Way Investments, LLC, and Camzam Investments, Inc., d.b.a. Black & White Car Rental, erroneously named and sued as Black & White Car Rental, filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Rostam and Roes 1-100 for breach of rental agreement, breach of bailment, and negligence (property damage). On September 26, 2022, Rostam filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On March 10, 2022, Rostam filed an answer to the complaint. On September 26, 2022, Rostam filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Burton Way Investments, LLC, Camzam Investments, Inc., dba Black & White Car Rental, and Moes 1-100 for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff Michelle Dreer (“Plaintiff”), in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Brionna Dreer, filed a first amended complaint. On February 15, 2024, Rostam filed an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
On June 3, 2024, the Court granted in part the motion to strike filed by Defendants Burton Way Investments, LLC, and Camzam Investments, Inc., d.b.a. Black & White Car Rental, erroneously named and sued as Black & White Car Rental. The Court struck portions of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend.
On June 18, 2024, Defendants Burton Way Investments, LLC, and Camzam Investments, Inc., d.b.a. Black & White Car Rental, erroneously named and sued as Black & White Car Rental, filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On December 9, 2024, Defendants Camzam Investments, Inc. (“Camzan”) and Burton Way Investments, LLC, dba Black & White Car Rental (“Burton”) filed (1) a motion to compel Rostam’s responses to supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions, (2) a motion to compel Rostam’s responses to supplemental interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, (3) a motion to compel Rostam’s responses to form interrogatories, set two and for sanctions, and (4) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Rostam and for sanctions. The motions were set for hearing on January 28 and 29, 2025. On January 9, 2025, Rostam filed an opposition. On January 28, 2025, Rostam’s counsel filed a declaration stating that Rostam served verified responses to the requests for admission on January 16, 2025. The Court continued the hearings set for January 28, 2025 to January 29, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 14, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Camzan and Burton ask the Court to compel Rostam’s responses to supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, supplemental interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set two, and to deem admitted the matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Rostam. Camzan and Burton also ask the Court to impose sanctions on Rostam.
Rostam asks the Court (1) to deny the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and (2) not to impose sanctions on Rostam.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
C. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
On September 9, 2024, Camzan and Burton served supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, supplemental interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set two, and requests for admission, set one, on Rostam. Rostam did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Camzan and Burton filed these motions. Camzan and Burton ask the Court (1) to compel Rostam to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, to supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, supplemental interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set two, (2) to deem admitted the matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Rostam, and (3) to impose sanctions on Rostam.
In opposition, Rostam states that his attorney takes responsibility for the failure to serve timely discovery responses and asks that sanctions not be imposed on Rostam. In a subsequent declaration, Rostam’s counsel states that Rostam served verified responses to the requests for admission on January 9, 2025.
The Court grants the motions to compel supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, supplemental interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set two, filed by Camzam and Burton. Rostam has admitted that he did not serve timely responses to this discovery and he has not shown that he has served any responses to date.
The Court denies the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. Rostam has submitted a declaration from counsel stating that Rostam served verified responses to the requests for admission on January 9, 2025. In the absence of evidence rebutting the declaration, the Court finds that the declaration prevents the Court from granting the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).
However, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [a] motion” under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Camzan and Burton request $3,544.15 in sanctions on their motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in requests for admission based on seven hours of attorney time at a rate of $495.00 per hour and $79.15 for motion and electronic filing charges. Counsel spent four hours to prepare the moving papers and anticipated spending two hours to review Rostam’s opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to attend the hearing. The Court awards Camzan and Burton $829.15 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and filing fees.
Camzan and Burton also ask the Court to award a total of $7,667.55 sanctions on their three motions to compel discovery responses. The Court awards $1,237.45 in sanctions on the three motions to compel based on four hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Behrooz Rostam’s responses to supplemental demand for production of documents, set one, filed by Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Camzam Investments, Inc. and Burton Way Investments, LLC, dba Black & White Car Rental. The Court orders Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Behrooz Rostam to serve code-compliant verified responses to the supplemental demand for production of documents without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by February 21, 2025.
The Court DENIES the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, filed by Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Camzam Investments, Inc. and Burton Way Investments, LLC, dba Black & White Car Rental.
The Court GRANTS in part the request for sanctions of Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Camzam Investments, Inc. and Burton Way Investments, LLC, dba Black & White Car Rental. The Court orders counsel for Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Behrooz Rostam to pay Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Camzam Investments, Inc. and Burton Way Investments, LLC, dba Black & White Car Rental $2,066.60 ($829.15 plus $1,237.45) by February 21, 2025. In all other respects, the Court denies the sanctions requests.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.