Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00572, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00572, Date: 2025-04-01 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: 23CHCV00572 Hearing Date: April 1, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/1/25 TRIAL DATE: 1/12/26

Case #23CHCV00572

2 DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Motions filed on 9/23/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Arvin Tarverdi

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Michael D. Finley

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED:

(1) An order compelling Plaintiff Michael D. Finley to provide responses, without objections, to Defendant Arvin Tarverdi’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against $1,540.00 against Plaintiff and/or his law firm, Law Office of Michael D. Finley.

(2) An order compelling Plaintiff Michael D. Finley to provide responses, without objections, to Defendant Arvin Tarverdi’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against $1,540.00 against Plaintiff and/or his law firm, Law Office of Michael D. Finley.

RULING:

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 3/1/21. On 2/27/23, Plaintiff Michael D. Finley (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Arvin Tarverdi (Defendant). On 6/13/24, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 4/19/24, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses. (McCabe Decls. ¶3). Despite reminders, Defendant’s counsel contends that Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the subject discovery before the filing of these motions. (Id. ¶6). Therefore, on 9/23/24, Defendant filed and served the instant motions seeking:

On 3/20/25, Plaintiff filed and served late (2 days) oppositions to the motions. See CCP 1005(b) (oppositions were due at least 9 court days before the hearing date). Defendant has not filed replies to the oppositions.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the subject discovery before the instant motions were filed. (See McCabe Decls. ¶6).

The opposition to the motion regarding Form Interrogatories, Set 1, contends that Plaintiff served responses on 8/12/24, more than a month before the motion was filed and served. (See Finley Decl. ¶2). Plaintiff states that he did not attach the answers because they contain “sensitive information, such as [his] driver’s license and home address;” however, Plaintiff has attached a copy of the proof of service for the responses and a copy of the email to which the responses were purportedly attached. Id. Plaintiff provides no authority which protects the “sensitive information” contained in his purported responses to the Form Interrogatories from being included with the opposition. Such information would have been required to be included in a motion to compel further responses and/or Plaintiff could have provided a copy of the responses with the claimed “sensitive information” redacted. Since a copy of the responses has not been provided, the Court cannot confirm that the responses were actually served on 8/12/24, especially since Plaintiff concedes that he mistakenly thought he had served responses to the document requests on 8/12/24, but actually did not. On the other hand, Defendant has not filed a reply to the opposition refuting that responses to the Form Interrogatories were served on 8/12/24. However, as noted above, the opposition was filed and served late.

The opposition to the motion regarding Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, concedes that while documents were purportedly produced in response to the requests on 8/12/24, actual responses to the document requests were not served until 3/20/25. (Finley Decl. ¶2, Ex.2).

CONCLUSION

If Defendant concedes receiving responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set 1, before the hearing, the request to compel responses to such discovery will be found to be moot. If not, the hearing will be continued to allow Plaintiff to provide further evidence (i.e., copies of the responses) that the responses were served before the hearing.

Since Plaintiff served responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, on 3/20/25, Defendant’s request to compel responses to such discovery is moot. If Defendant is not satisfied with those responses, Defendant must file and serve a motion to compel further responses.

The Court finds that sanctions are not warranted against Plaintiff because even though responses to the Requests for Production of Documents were not served until 3/20/25 and even if responses to the Form Interrogatories were not served on 8/12/24, the evidence indicates that Defendant attempted to serve responses and if such responses were not attached to the emails sent in August 2024 as indicated, defense counsel could have contacted Plaintiff to inquire about the missing attachments before filing the motions. See CCP 2030.290(c); CCP 2031.300(c).

Even if Plaintiff served responses to the Form Interrogatories before the motion regarding same was filed and serve, Plaintiff cannot recover attorney fees as sanctions as an attorney representing himself. See Aragam (1999) 73 CA4th 1173, 1179-1180; Kravitz (2001) 91 CA4th 1015; Trope (1995) 11 C4th 274, 277.

As such, both parties requests for sanctions are denied.