Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV20210, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20210    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 61

ARAM BAGRAMYAN vs FMB DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Aram Bagramyan’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production Requests for Production from Defendants FMB Development LLC and Ilan Kenig are GRANTED. Defendants are to serve responses without objections within 20 days of notice of ruling.  Sanctions are awarded jointly against Defendants in the amount of $2,685.00, payable within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

MOTION TO COMPEL

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff Aram Bagramyan (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production served upon Defendants FMB Development, LLC and Ilan Kenig (Defendants) on November 7, 2023, with responses due by the agreed extension date of January 8, 2024. (Madnick Decl. ¶¶ 2–5.) No responses were served by that date, and no responses have been received despite informal meet-and-confer efforts. (Madnick Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.).

Plaintiff has shown that no responses to the discovery have been provided, and Defendants have filed no opposition to the motion. The motions are therefore GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks $2,685.00 in connection with each motion, representing five hours of attorney work on each motion at $525 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee, which yields a total sanctions request for all six motions together of $16,110.00. (Madnick Decl. ¶ 8.) This amount is unreasonably excessive in relation to the simplicity of the motions. Plaintiff may justly seek a single total award of $2,685.00 for all six motions, given that the motions are substantially identical.