Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV28678, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28678 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: 32
PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
TENTATIVE RULING
|
DEPARTMENT |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE |
October 25, 2022 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
21STCV28678 |
|
MOTIONS |
Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; and Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Requests for Monetary Sanctions |
|
Petitioner Progressive Select Insurance Company | |
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
None |
MOTIONS
Petitioner Progressive Select Insurance Company (Petitioner) moves to compel responses from Petitioner Talia Ohal to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) and Demand for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).
Petitioner additionally moves to compel responses from Michael Soroka to Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG) and Demand for Production of Documents, set one (RPD), and moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).
Further, Petitioner seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the five motions. Respondents Talia Ohal and Michael Soroka (collectively, Respondents) have not filed oppositions to the motions.
ANALYSIS
The Civil Discovery Act applies in arbitration of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage claims. (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f); see Mallard v. Progressive Choice Insurance Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 540.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010. . . . [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)
Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010. . . . [and] The party
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
Here, Petitioner served the FROG, SROG, RPDs, and RFA on Respondents on June 22, 2020, via mail. Respondents’ responses were thus due by July 27, 2020. As of the filing date of the motions, Petitioner has not received responses from Respondents. Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents have failed to serve timely responses to the FROG, SROG, RPDs and RFA.
Petitioner requests monetary sanctions in connection with the five motions. The Court finds Respondents’ failure to timely respond to the FROG, SROG, RPDs, and RFA to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Respondents’ counsel of record, Jack Sogoyan of Zwirn, Gevorkyan & Sogoyan, LLP, in the amount of $1,500, which represents six hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $200 per hour, plus the filing fees of $300 at $60 per motion.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Therefore, the Court grants Petitioner’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RPDs per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. As such, the Court orders Respondent Michael Soroka to serve verified responses to the SROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, and orders Respondent Talia Ohal to serve verified responses to the FROG and RPD, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.
Further, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Respondent Michael Soroka.
Further, the Court orders Respondents’ counsel of record, Jack Sogoyan of Zwirn, Gevorkyan & Sogoyan, LLP, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500 to Petitioner, by and through counsel for Petitioner, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.
Petitioner shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.