Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV16090, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling
Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.
Case Number: 24STCV16090 Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Dept: 57
Pending before the Court
are motions filed by Plaintiff Samaneh Barzegar (“Barzegar”) seeking orders
compelling Defendants Enrich Financial, Inc. (“EFI”) and Aran Eghbali
(“Eghbali”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”)
that Barzegar propounded on EFI and Eghbali.
Barzegar also asks the Court in the motions to impose monetary sanctions
against EFI and Eghbali in the form of the attorney’s fees and costs that
Barzegar incurred in connection with the motions. The Court is granting the motions in full to
the extent that they seek orders compelling further responses to the
SROGs. The motions are granted in part
to the extent they seek an award of Barzegar’s attorney’s fees and costs.
1. Identify the documents in
EFI’s possession which are relevant and admissible for the purpose of
establishing EFI’s financial condition from July 6, 2020 to the present, as
required by Civil Code § 3295(c).
2. Identify the witness(es)
employed by or related to EFI who are most competent to testify to EFI’s
financial condition from July 6, 2020 to the present, as required by Civil Code
§ 3295(c).
3. Identify the documents in
EFI’s possession which are relevant and admissible for the purpose of
establishing EFI’s profits from July 6, 2020 to the present, as required by
Civil Code § 3295(c).
4. Identify the witness(es)
employed by or related to EFI who are most competent to testify to EFI’s
profits from July 6, 2020 to the present, as required by Civil Code § 3295(c).
1. Identify the documents
in Eghbali’s possession which are relevant and admissible for the purpose of
establishing Eghbali’s financial condition from July 6, 2020 to the present, as
required by Civil Code § 3295(c).
2. Identify the witness(es)
employed by or related to Eghbali who are most competent to testify to Eghbali’
financial condition from July 6, 2020 to the present, as required by Civil Code
§ 3295(c).
EFI and Eghbali responded to the SROGs solely
with objections to them on privacy and relevance grounds. And in their oppositions to the motions. EFI
and Eghbali argue that even though the SROGs cite Civil Code Section 3295(c) as
the statutory authority for the requests for the information sought through the
SROGs, Section 3295(c) actually forbids plaintiffs from obtaining that
information from defendants in pre-trial discovery.
EFI and Eghbali privacy and relevance
objections to the SROGs were invalid. The
information sought in the SROGs is relevant to Barzegar’s claim that he is
entitled to a punitive damages award in this case under Civil Code Section 3294. No privacy rights are implicated by the SROGs. They do not ask EFI and Eghbali to turn over
any financial documents. Rather, they just ask EFI and Eghbali to identify financial
documents.
As for EFI and Eghbali argument regarding 3295(c),
the statute states as follows:
No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall
be permitted with respect to the evidence [of the defendant’s financial
condition and profits] unless the court enters an order permitting such
discovery pursuant to this subdivision. However, the plaintiff may subpoena
documents or witnesses to be available at the trial for the purpose of
establishing the profits or financial condition referred to in subdivision (a),
and the defendant may be required to identify documents in the defendant's
possession which are relevant and admissible for that purpose and the witnesses
employed by or related to the defendant who would be most competent to testify
to those facts. Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate
affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary,
the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise
prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the
supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has
established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will
prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 Such order shall not be
considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense
thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial.
EFI and Eghbali’s argument that Section 3295(c)
bars Barzegar from obtaining the information sought in the SROGs overlooks the
statute’s second sentence. It expressly
authorizes the plaintiff to ask the defendant in pre-trial discovery to
identify documents and witnesses bearing on the defendant’s financial condition
and profits.
The Court is directing EFI and Eghbali to
provide the further responses to the SROGs that Barzegar seeks within 30 days
of this order.
Monetary sanctions in
connection with interrogatories are governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section
2030.290(c). It states that [t]he court
shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to the
interrogatories, 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.” Here, the
position that EFI and Eghbali took in connection with Barzegar’s SROGs was not
substantially justified, and the imposition of monetary sanctions against EFI
and Eghbali would not be unjust.
Accordingly, the Court is imposing monetary sanctions against them.
The amount of monetary sanctions that Barzegar seeks in the motions is excessive, however. She seeks to recover attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the two motions in the amount of $4,060 for both motions, for a total of $8,120. This figure, Barzegar says, reflects eight hours of work by Barzegar’s counsel for the opening and reply briefs supporting both motions and attendance at the hearing on the motions, or 16 hours total, at the rate of $500 per hour, plus filings fees of $60 x 2. The motions are largely identical and uncomplicated. It should not have taken 16 hours of attorney time to prepare the briefs supporting them. The Court is awarding Barzegar attorney’s fees of $2,000 per motion, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion. The sanctions are imposed against EFI and Eghbali. The sanctions are payable to Barzegar within 60 days of this order.