Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV03661, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03661, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03661 Hearing Date: March 19, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/19/25 TRIAL DATE: 5/11/26

Case #23CHCV03661

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2 & 3)

Motion filed on 10/9/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Matthew Kyungjoon Min and Joyce Min

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ali Rezvan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Ali Rezvan to provide verified responses to Defendant Matthew Kyungjoon Min’s Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2 and 3, without objections, within 10 days. Additionally, the Mins request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Erez Ahrony of Compass Law Center, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,659.00.

RULING: The motion is moot, in part, and granted, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a two-vehicle, rear-end accident that occurred on 12/3/21 on eastbound Devonshire Street and Oakdale Avenue in Los Angeles, California. On 12/1/23, Plaintiff Ali Rezvan (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (Maxim), Matthew Kyungjoon Min (Matthew) and Joyce Min (Joyce) (collectively, the Mins) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On 5/23/24, the Mins answered the complaint and on 6/13/24, the Mins filed an amended answer to the complaint. On 9/16/24, Maxim answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against the Mins for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief and apportionment of fault.

On 5/23/24, Matthew served Form Interrogatories, Set 1, on Plaintiff making responses due on or before 6/25/24. (Herrera Decl., Ex.A). On 6/21/25, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the first set of discovery which was granted until 7/25/24 on 6/26/24. (Opposition, Ex.A). On 7/25/24, Plaintiff served unverified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1. (Id., Ex.B). On 6/13/24, Matthew served Form Interrogatories, Set 2, making responses due on or before 7/16/24. (Herrera Decl., Ex.C). On 7/25/24, Plaintiff served unverified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2. (Id., Ex.D). On 7/26/24, Matthew served Form Interrogatories, Set 3, on Plaintiff making responses due on or before 8/27/24. (Id., Ex.E). Plaintiff did not serve any responses to the third set of Form Interrogatories and demanded that Matthew withdraw Form Interrogatories, Set 3. (Id., Ex.F). On 9/6/24, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter requesting verified responses without objection to Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2 and 3 on or before 9/11/24. (Id., Ex.G). No verified or unverified responses were received in response. (Herrera Decl.).

On 10/9/24, the Mins filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Defendant Matthew Kyungjoon Min’s Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2 and 3, without objections, within 10 days. Additionally, the Mins request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Erez Ahrony of Compass Law Center, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,659.00. On 3/10/25, two days late, Plaintiff filed and served an opposition to the motion. See CCP 1005(b). On 3/13/25, Defendants filed and served a late reply to the late opposition. Id. Despite the late filing of the opposition and reply, both documents were considered by the Court in ruling on the motion. See CRC 3.1300(d).

ANALYSIS

When responding to interrogatories, a party must sign the responses under oath (i.e. verification) unless the responses contain only objections. See CCP 2030.210(a); CCP 2030.250(a). If the responding party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the interrogatories and the propounding party may move to compel responses. CCP 2030.290(a), (b).

Plaintiff fails to support his assertion that “[t]he lack of verification is a curable defect that does not transform substantive responses into non-responses” and that “[t]he proper procedure would have been [for Defendants] to file a timely motion to compel further responses addressing the verification issue, not to wait months and then file an untimely motion under the guise of ‘no responses at all’" with any authority. (See Opposition, p.5:18-21). In fact, Plaintiff’s argument contradicts well established authority that an unverified substantive discovery response is the equivalent of no response. See Appleton (1988) 206 CA3d 632, 636. As such, even considering the extension granted with regard to the first set of Form Interrogatories, those responses were untimely because they were admittedly unverified. See Appleton, supra; (Opposition, p.6:14-15). The reply concedes that verifications for the responses to Form Interrogatories, Sets 1 and 2, were served on 3/10/25. (See Reply, p.3:10-11, p.4:8-9, p.4:26-28). As such, the 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further responses begins on such date. See CCP 2030.300(c).

The reply indicates that Plaintiff has still not provided any responses, verified or unverified, to Form Interrogatories, Set 3. (See Reply, p.5:1-4). Plaintiff’s claim that Form Interrogatories, Set 3, are irrelevant and improper does not excuse Plaintiff’s obligation to respond to the discovery or seek a protective order. See CCP 2030.090; CCP 2030.210. As such, an order compelling responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 3, without objection, is warranted. See CCP 2030.290(a), (b).

Since Plaintiff failed to serve verified responses to any of the interrogatories at issue before this motion was filed, the Mins had no obligation to meet and confer before filing this motion. See CCP 2030.290. Despite the foregoing, defense counsel did attempt to informally resolve this discovery dispute before filing this motion to no avail. (See Herrera Decl., Ex.F, G).

Defendants are entitled to sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Erez Ahrony of Compass Law Center, LLP, jointly and severally, for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations. CCP 2030.290(c). The Court finds that sanctions in the amount of $1,249.00 (4.8 hours to prepare motion, review opposition and prepare reply + 1 hour to prepare for and appear at the hearing multiplied by $205/hour + $60 filing fee) are reasonable under the circumstances. (Herrera Decl. ¶10).

CONCLUSION

The request to compel Plaintiff Ali Rezvan to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Sets 1 and 2 is moot as the reply concedes that verifications for the previously served responses have been received.

Plaintiff Ali Rezvan is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set 3, within 30 days.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Ali Rezvan and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Erez Ahrony of Compass Law Center, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,249.00, payable within 30 days.

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4) Defendants Matthew Kyjungjoon Min and Joyce Min have failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion and that the exhibits attached to the opposition are not properly electronically bookmarked (bookmark title does not identify the exhibit number/letter or describe the exhibit). Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.