Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV14976, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 23STCV14976 Hearing Date: February 5, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and notice of no-opposition/reply, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 23STCV14976
On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Karine Karapetyan (“Karapetyan”) filed an action against Defendants Melrose Escape Revolution LLC (“Escape”), 7120 Melrose LLC (“Melrose”), Soleiman Hakakian (“Soleiman Hakakian”), Mois Refoua (“Refoua”), and Does 1-25 for loss of consortium. (Case number 23STCV14976.)
On August 9, 2023, Karapetyan filed a first amended complaint against Escape, Melrose, Soleiman Hakakian, Refoua, Shahla Hakakian (“Shahla Hakahian”), Lux Air Heating & Air Conditioning (“Lux”), Zaven Simonyan (“Simonyan”), and Does 1-25 for loss of consortium.
On September 15, 2023, Escape, Melrose, Soleiman Hakakian, Shahla Hakakian, and Refoua filed an answer to Karapetyan’s first amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Lux, Simonyan, and Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On October 25, 2023, Lux and Simonian filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On November 28, 2023, the Court granted in part the motion to strike filed by Escape, Melrose, Soleiman Hakakian, Shahla Hakakian, and Refoua. The Court struck from the first amended complaint the attorney’s fee request, the request for special damages, and the following language in paragraph 20: “which deprivation has caused, continues to cause, and in the future is expected to cause Plaintiff to suffer depression, emotional distress, loss of earning capacity, past injuries.” The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend.
On June 4, 2024, Lux and Simonyan filed an answer to Karapetyan’s first amended complaint.
B. Case number 23STCV16424
On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff Vardan Ohanjanyan (“Ohanjanyan”) filed an action against Defendants Escape, Soleiman Hakakian as Trustee of Hakakian Family Trust, Shahla Hakakian as Trustee of Hakakian Family Trust, Lux, Simonyan, and Does 1-50 for premises liability and negligence. (Case number 23STCV16424.)
On September 14, 2023, Lux and Simonyan filed an answer to Ohanjanyan’s complaint.
On October 12, 2023, Escape, Melrose, Soleiman Hakakian, and Shahla Hakakian filed an answer to Ohanjanyan’s complaint and a filed cross-complaint against Lux, Simonyan, and Roes 1-25 for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On July 30, 2024, Lux and Simonyan filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On November 14, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 23STCV14976 and 23STCV16424 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 23STCV14976 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On May 13, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to consolidate case numbers 23STCV14976 and 23STCV16424 for all purposes. Case number 23STCV14976 remained the lead case.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 9, 2025.
D. This motion
On October 8, 2024, Escape filed a motion to compel Lux’s further
responses to request for production of documents, set one, and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on December 23,
2024. Lux did not file an
opposition. The Court continued the
hearing to February 5, 2025. On January
29, 2025, Escape filed a notice of no-opposition/reply brief.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Informal Discovery Conference
The Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, provides: “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.”
The parties participated in an IDC on December 3, 2024.
B. Timeliness
Unless notice of a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Escape filed its motion on October 8, 2024, the deadline to which the parties agreed. (See Exh. F to Kang dec.)
C. Meet and confer
A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 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.)
Escape has submitted a meet and confer declaration.
D. Separate statement
With exceptions that do not apply here, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.
Escape has filed a separate statement.
APPLICABLE LAW
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part:
“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
“(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:
“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.
“(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.
“(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subds. (a), (b), (c), (h).)
DISCUSSION
A. Request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 2, 8, 10, 13
Lux responded to request for production of documents numbers 1, 2, 8, 10, and 13 by stating that it would “produce all non-privileged documents in [its] possession, custody, or control responsive to [these requests].” However, Lux has produced no documents in response to the requests. The Court orders Lux to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things in its possession, custody, or control responsive to request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 2, 8, 10, and 13 by February 19, 2025.
In the alternative, if Lux contends that a privilege allows it to withhold any documents responsive to request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1, 2, 8, 10, and 13, Lux may serve verified, code-compliant further responses by February 19, 2025 that do the following:
(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection based on privilege is being made.
(2) State the particular privilege invoked. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product, that claim shall be expressly asserted.
(3) If an
objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information
sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual
information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including,
if necessary, a privilege log.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subds. (b), (c).)
B. Request for production of documents, set one, numbers 4 and 7
C. Request for production of documents, set one, number 14
Lux objects that Escape’s request for Ohanjanyan’s paystubs violates Ohanjanyan’s constitutional right to privacy.
When a party seeks discovery which impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play. (See Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover a person’s personal and financial matters. (Ibid.) The court must balance competing rights — the litigant’s right to discover relevant facts and the individual’s right to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Ibid.)
“ ‘[W]hile the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such “waiver” must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities.’ [Citation.] Therefore, . . . an implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842; see ibid. [“On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery”].)
“Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. [Citation.] The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. [Citation.]” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)
The Court has weighed Escape’s need for discovery of
Ohanjanyan’s
paystubs against Ohanjanyan’s privacy rights.
The Court overrules Lux’s privacy objection and other objections and
orders Escape to serve verified, code-compliant further responses to request
for production of documents, set one, number 14 and to produce the documents,
electronically stored information, and/or other things responsive to request
for production of documents, set one, number 14 by February 19, 2025.
D. Escape's sanctions request
Escape asks the Court to impose $2,160.00 in sanctions
on Lux. Under
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel further response to a demand (except as provided in subdivision (j)), unless the court finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
Lux did not make or oppose a motion to compel further responses. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h).
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for this motion. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court held: “It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.” (PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), limits the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the non-moving party does not oppose a successful motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents. Because the statute addresses this issue, the Court will not invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
The
Court denies Escape’s request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant and Cross-Complainant Melrose Escape Revolution LLC’s motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Defendant Lux Air Heating & Air Conditioning’s further responses to request for production of documents, set one, as more fully set forth above. The Court orders Defendant and Cross-Defendant Lux Air Heating & Air Conditioning to serve further verified code-compliant responses and produce responsive documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things responsive to the requests for production as more fully set forth above by February 19, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant and Cross-Complainant Melrose Escape
Revolution LLC’s request for sanctions.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.