Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV21401, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21401    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

A.   Prior proceedings 

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Nerses Abrahamyan (“Plaintiff”) and Gayane Khachatryan filed this action against Defendants S D Trucks LLC, Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal (“Dhaliwal”), Marjinder Singh, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On October 13, 2022, Dhaliwal filed an answer. 

On December 22, 2022, the Court found that this case (number 22STCV21401) and case number 22STCV24450 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  Case number 22STCV21401 became the lead case.  The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

On January 24, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant Manjinder Singh (named in complaint as Marjinder Singh) with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. 

On October 12, 2023, Defendant S D Trucks, LLC (“SD Trucks”) filed an answer. 

On October 16, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Gayane Khachatryan from the complaint with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. 

On May 9, 2024, the case was transferred to Department J in the Santa Monica courthouse for trial.  On May 29, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding that Dhaliwal was negligent, Ghaliwal’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s total damages were $70,000.00 ($10,000.00 for past medical expenses and $60,000.00 for past noneconomic damages), and Plaintiff was not negligent. 

On October 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.  The case was reassigned to Department 28 in the Spring Street courthouse. 

On December 5, 2024, SD Trucks filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal is pending.  (Court of Appeal case number B343151.) 

B.   These motions 

1.    Motions to compel further discovery responses and for sanctions 

On March 11, 2025, Dhaliwal and SD Trucks (“Defendants”) filed motions (1) compelling Plaintiff’s further responses to request for production of documents, set five, number 110 and for sanctions and (2) compelling Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories, set three, numbers 1.1 and 17.1 and for sanctions.  The motions were set for hearing on April 29, 2025.  On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed oppositions and requests for sanctions.  On April 22, 2025, Dhaliwal filed a reply.  The Court continued the hearing to May 5, 2025. 

2.    Motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions 

On March 11, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions.  The motion was set for hearing on May 5, 2025.  On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition and request for sanctions.  On April 28, 2025, Defendants filed a reply. 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The pending appeal does not prevent the Court from deciding these discovery motions 

The Court finds that the pending appeal of the Court’s order granting a new trial does not prevent the Court from ruling on Defendants’ discovery motions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189-191.) 

B.   Motions to compel further responses 

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or interrogatory must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd (b)(2).)  “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  

Here, Defendants submitted their counsel’s declarations stating: “After meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff electronically served verifications to [requests for production of documents, set five, and form interrogatories, set three] on January 21, 2025.”  (Falcon decs. ¶ 9.)  Counsel’s declarations provided no information about the issues addressed in the meet-and-confer efforts or Defendants’ reasonableness or good faith.  The Court finds that the declarations’ cursory reference to meet and confer efforts does not satisfy the requirement for a declaration “stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) 

The Court denies the motions.  The Court also denies Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions because Defendants acted with substantial justification. 

C.   Motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions 

1.    Legal standard 

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.) 

2.    Defendants’ motion 

Although Defendants’ motion is titled “Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted,” the motion concedes that Plaintiff served responses to Defendants’ requests for admission on November 26, 2024.  (Motion p. 2.)  Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to an order to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. 

Defendants also ask the Court to order Plaintiff to serve further responses to the requests for admission, arguing Plaintiffs’ responses consisted of improper objections.  A motion to compel further responses to requests for admission “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) 

Defendants submitted their counsel’s declaration stating: “After meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff electronically served verifications to Requests for Admissions, Set Two, on January 21, 2025.”  (Falcon dec. ¶ 9.)  Counsel’s declaration provided no information about the issues addressed in the meet-and-confer efforts or Defendants’ reasonableness or good faith.  The Court finds that the declaration’s cursory reference to meet and confer efforts does not satisfy the requirement for a declaration “stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) 

The Court denies the motion.  

Plaintiff asks the Court to award $1,750.00 in sanctions based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $350.00 per hour.  Counsel spent four hours preparing the opposition and anticipates spending one hour to review the reply and attend the hearing.  The Court awards Plaintiff $750.00 in sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d), based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour. 

CONCLUSION 

          The Court DENIES the motion to compel Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan’s further responses to request for production of documents, set five, and for sanctions filed by Defendants S D Trucks, LLC, and Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal.  The Court DENIES Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan’s request for sanctions. 

          The Court DENIES the motion to compel Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan’s further responses to form interrogatories, set three, and for sanctions filed by Defendants S D Trucks, LLC, and Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan’s request for sanctions. 

The Court DENIES the motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan filed by Defendants S D Trucks, LLC, and Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal and for sanctions. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan’s request for sanctions and orders Defendants S D Trucks, LLC, and Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal and their counsel to pay Plaintiff Nerses Abrahamyan $750.00 by June 4, 2025. 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. 

Moving parties are ordered to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.