Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 20STCV47134 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV47134, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV47134 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC to Respond to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records; Request for Sanctions in Favor of California Automobile Insurance Company and Against Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC in the Amount of $1,072.50

Moving Party: Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company (“CAIC”)

Resp. Party: None

Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC to Respond to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is GRANTED.

Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company's Request for Sanctions in Favor of California Automobile Insurance Company and Against Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC is GRANTED in the amount of $585.00.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Caprianos Nazarian, an individual, Avo Oughourlian an individual, Sarkis Semerjian, an individual, Rita Semerjian, an individual, Tro Semerjian, an individual, Sarkis Karkoudrian, an individual, Rajiv Bannur, an individual, Zohrab Ardjian, an individual, Varduhi Ardjian, an individual, Maral Gungormezer, an individual, Tigren Dorian, an individual, Rodrick Khachatoorian, an individual, Jeanna Sakalian, an individual, Krikor Kaprielian, an individual, Tereza Kaprielian, an individual, and Tara Kaprielian, an individual, filed a complaint against Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

On August 3, 2022, CAIC moved the Court for an order “compelling Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC to respond to the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records served May 16, 2022 (hereafter "Record Subpoena") and for an order of sanctions in favor of California Automobile Insurance Company and against Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC in the amount of $1,072.50.” (Motion, p. 2:7-11.)

On September 7, 2022, CAIC replied to Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC’s (“Platinum”) lack of opposition to its motion to compel.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

1. Motion to Compel

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a), 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (CCP. § 2030.290(a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of “good cause”—i.e., declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) Good cause is construed liberally; discovery justification is found where specific facts show the documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587; [8:787] Motion to Compel Answers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8E-15.) A lack of an alternative source for the sought information is an important "good cause" factor, but it is not essential. (Id. at 587-88.)

If a deponent fails to answer a deposition question or produce documents or things designated in the deposition notice or subpoena, the examiner may either complete the examination on other matters or adjourn the deposition. (CCP § 2025.460(e).) The party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (CCP § 2025.480(a).) "This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (CCP § 2025.480(b).) A meet and confer declaration under CCP § 2016.040 “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.) Disputed questions and answers must be set forth verbatim in a separate statement (not in the motion itself) that provides the factual and legal reasons why further answers should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a).)

2. Monetary Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

B. Discussion

3. Motion to Compel

CAIC served the Record Subpoena on Platinum on May 16, 2022, “imposing a production date of June 8, 2022.” (Smyle Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, Exs. B, C.) The Court finds that thirty days from the service date was June 15, 2022. CAIC sent multiple letters to Platinum to inquire about document production, and as of August 3, 2022, Platinum has not responded to those letters or produced the requested documents. (Smyle Decl. ¶¶ 7-11, Exs. D-G.)

CAIC notes that good cause exists for the Record Subpoena because “Plaintiff Karkoudrian has never produced any estimates or other documents pertaining to the work purportedly performed by Platinum Cleaning. Therefore, Defendant requires a response to the Record Subpoena to obtain information that is relevant to its claims and defenses and essential to Defendant's preparation for trial.” (Smyle Decl. ¶ 12.)

The Motion is unopposed.

4. Monetary Sanctions

CAIC’s counsel spent three hours to prepare the instant motion at a billing rate of $195.00 per hour. Platinum filed no opposition to this motion.

The Court finds monetary sanctions appropriate against Platinum in the amount of $585.00.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Platinum Cleaning Company, LLC to Respond to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is GRANTED.