Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 23SMCV03071, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03071, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Jonah Berghoff, Stephan Berghoff, and Arezou Berghoff (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Vadim Ivanov (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“FROG”); Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”); and Demands for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RPD”). Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.

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).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [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 making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)

Defendants electronically served Plaintiff with the FROG, SROG and RPD on February 2, 2024. (See Exhibit A to Matteis Decl.) Plaintiff did not respond to the subject discovery requests. (Matteis Decl. ¶ 7.) As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD.

Defendants request monetary sanctions for legal fees spent in connection with the motions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the FROG, SROG and RPD to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (h).) Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $918.00, which represents six hours of attorney time to prepare the three motions and attend the hearing, at $133 per hour, plus $120 in filing fees for the three motions.[1]

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $918.00 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

[1] “Where sanctions are sought against the opposing party's counsel, the notice of motion must expressly so state. It is not enough simply to attach declarations or a transcript showing that the deponent refused to appear or answer questions on counsel's advice.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 8:1985 (citing Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 CA3d 317; Marriage of Fuller (1985) 163 CA3d 1070); see also id. at ¶ 8:1986 [“Where an award is sought against the attorney for advising the opposing party not to answer or respond, the notice of motion must identify the opposing counsel and state that sanctions are being sought against such counsel personally”].) Here, Defendants failed to name counsel for Plaintiff as required; therefore, the Court finds the notice regarding monetary sanctions as to counsel for Plaintiff to be procedurally defective.

DEPARTMENT	207
HEARING DATE	September 24, 2024
CASE NUMBER	23SMV03071
MOTIONS	Motions to Compel Responses to: 1. Form Interrogatories (Set One) 2. Special Interrogatories (Set One) 3. Demands for Production of Documents (Set One) Requests for Monetary Sanctions
MOVING PARTIES	Defendants Jonah Berghoff; Stephan Berghoff; and Arezou Berghoff
OPPOSING PARTY	none