Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00739, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20CHCV00739    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/23/22                                                                     TRIAL DATE: 3/6/23

Case #20CHCV00739

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 5/27/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Harry Bchakjian

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,220.00 against Defendant and/or its counsel.

RULING: The motion is denied. 

On 5/27/22, Plaintiff Harry Bchakjian (Plaintiff) filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,220.00 against Defendant and/or its counsel.  Defendant has opposed the motion and has requested sanctions in the amount of $1,350.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Generally, a separate statement is required to be filed and served in support of a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents and tangible things.  See CRC 3.1345(a)(3).  The requirement of a separate statement may be excused by the court by allowing the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.  See CRC 3.1345(b)(2); CCP 2031.310(b)(3).  Here, Plaintiff did not file and serve a separate statement nor did Plaintiff obtain permission from the Court to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute before filing the motion. 

Plaintiff’s claim in the reply that a separate statement is not required under the circumstances is without merit.  Plaintiff first argues that a separate statement is not required because Defendant’s responses are the equivalent to no response.  However, the motion concedes that Defendant served responses which Plaintiff deemed to be evasive, non-responsive and incomplete and included improper objections.  (See Motion, p.2:11-13).  Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that responses deemed to inadequate by the propounding party are the equivalent of no response.  Plaintiff next contends that it already sent Defendant a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute in the meet and confer letter sent on 4/22/22 which was attached to the declaration of Eileen Keusseyan as Exhibit C.  The purpose of a separate statement or concise outline is not only to benefit the responding party in understanding the moving party’s argument, but also to assist the Court in evaluating each party’s arguments.  As noted above, Plaintiff did not obtain the Court’s permission to submit a concise outline in lieu of a separate statement.  Even if Plaintiff had obtained such permission from the Court, the motion itself does not include a precise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.  Plaintiff cites no authority to support the proposition that attaching a meet and confer letter (which also discusses discovery requests not at issue in this motion) to the motion as an exhibit satisfies the requirements of a concise outline referenced in CRC 3.1345(b)(3) and CCP 2031.300(b)(3).

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.  The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Keosian Law LLP, in the amount of $675.00 (2 hours to prepare opposition + 1 hour to appear multiplied by $225/hour) for opposing the motion.  See CCP 2031.310(h).  Sanctions are payable within 30 days.