Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV19934, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19934    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery;

Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery

Moving Party:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Khaled J. Al-Sabah

Responding Party:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michael Edward Bass

T/R:    AL-SABAH’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ARE GRANTED. AL-SABAH’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE REDUCED TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,561.65.

AL-SABAH’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO, IS GRANTED. AL-SABAH’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $1,561.65.

BASS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO RPDS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIS AND RFAS, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING

            AL-SABAH TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and replies.

            BACKGROUND

            On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Khaled J. Al-Sabah filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Michael Edward Bass, Ronald Richards and Usman Shaikh, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, theft, money had and received, conversion and accounting. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass was to be Al-Sabah’s “representative” in the US. Al-Sabah alleges he wired Bass $2.5 million to hire attorney Defendant Shaikh to represent Al-Sabah in an unrelated embezzlement lawsuit. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass kept $2 million of his money.

ANALYSIS

A. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests For Admission

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)

Al-Sabah moves to compel further responses to FIs nos. 2.6(b), 2.8, 2.11(b), 15.1(a), 17.1(b), 50.1, 50.2, 50.5, and 50.6 and RFAs nos. 1-10, 21-22, and 24 from Bass. Al-Sabah served discovery on December 3, 2021. Bass served responses to FIs on January 22, 2022, and responses to RFAs on May 4, 2022. Al-Sabah asserts that Bass’ responses consist of meritless objections and/or are incomplete. Bass does not justify the objections or to show that compliant responses have been served.

            Al-Sabah’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories and requests for admission are GRANTED. Al-Sabah’s request for sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced, total amount of $1,561.65.

B. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he 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. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”  (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).)

Al-Sabah moves to compel responses to RPDs, set two, from Bass. Al-Sabah served discovery on June 8, 2022. As of the filing of this motion, Bass has not shown that complaint responses have been served.

Al-Sabah’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Al-Sabah’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,561.65.