SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendants Robin Zargar and Joseph Mesachi (collectively, “Defendants”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) demand for identification and inspection of documents, set one, on plaintiff Martha Melgar (“Plaintiff Melgar”) on October 25, 2023. After sending a meet and confer letter regarding the lack of responses, Plaintiff Melgar has failed to serve responses to date. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling her to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.  

Plaintiff Melgar filed a “combined opposition” the motions to compel, arguing that she objected that service of the propounded discovery was not proper. Further, Plaintiff Melgar argues that the key attorney responsible for the case departed from the firm, and that Defendants are required to engage in good faith communication to resolve the discovery dispute. 

 

II. MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, 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.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); § 2031.300, subd. (a).)    

Here, the proof of service demonstrates that the discovery at issue were served by electronic transmission to Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, counsel for plaintiffs Pedro Melgar-Cruz and Martha Melgar, on October 25, 2023 via the e-mail address geoffrey@sehlawfirm.com. (Kothary Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff Melgar’s opposition refers to an objection to the service of the discovery responses. (Opp. Exh. A.) The email objection, dated October 31, 2023 from Geoffrey Kasler (“Mr. Kasler”) at geoffrey@sehlawfirm.com provides: “Our current service list includes those I have CC:d to this email, and myself, including: Sharona Abazari, and myself. We will start the clock when service has been perfected.”  

First, Plaintiff Melgar’s counsel does not deny that service upon Mr. Kasler at the electronic address was proper. Instead, counsel contests propriety on the grounds that three other members of the firm were not carbon copied on the email address. (Opp. Exh. A.) The purpose of proper service is for the other side to receive actual notice of the document being served. Here, Mr. Kasler does not deny that he is a proper recipient or that he had actual notice. Plaintiff Melgar’s counsel submits no authority that a defendant must also serve a number of other persons who work in the same firm for service to be properly effectuated, especially when the evidence demonstrates that service has indeed been accomplished. Second, Plaintiff Melgar’s legal team being on vacation during the holiday season around December 15, 2023 is not an excuse to not provide timely responses; by that time, responses were already long overdue. Third, there is no statutory requirement that Defendants meet and confer prior to bringing motions to compel initial discovery. Although it would appear to be good practice, such a requirement relates to other discovery motions. Lastly, counsel’s inability to contact Plaintiff Melgar in this matter is not an excuse for Plaintiff Melgar to evade her discovery obligations. Plaintiff Melgar initiated this action against Defendants, and Defendants are entitled to receive her responses. Counsel cites to zero legal authority in support of any of their contentions.  

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff Melgar was properly served with discovery and failed to timely respond, any objections have been waived. Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.  

Plaintiff Melgar is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendants’ (1) form interrogatories, set one, (2) special interrogatories, set one, and (3) demand for identification and inspection of documents, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff Melgar’s opposition provides no basis to warrant a denial of sanctions. Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $572 for each motion. 

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)         

Defendants are awarded one hour for each motion to compel, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $133 per hour for a total of $532 in attorney’s fees. Further, Defendants are awarded three motion filing fees of $40, for a total of $120 as costs.       

Sanctions are sought against Plaintiff Melgar and her counsel. However, given that Plaintiff Melgar’s counsel is unable to contact her, Defendants are on notice that the Court will not impose sanctions upon her counsel absent direct evidence that they in fact had the ability reach her. As such, the Court will impose sanctions on Plaintiff Melgar only at this time. 

Plaintiff Melgar is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $652, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.