Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV26331, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26331    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MARGARET DURAN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

WILSON ABELYAN, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV26331 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER   

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

October 10, 2023  

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Margaret Duran (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Wilson Abelyan and Vahe Termirzavants (“Termirzavants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Termirzavants to provide further responses to special Interrogatories, set one, and request for admissions, set one. 

Plaintiff requests provide further responses to (1) special interrogatories, set one, request Nos. 2-3, 4-13, 16, 19-20 & 23-25; and (2) request for admissions, set one, requests Nos. 1 and 2. Termirzavants opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of all pleadings and documents in the instant action is denied. It is unnecessary for the Court to take judicial notice of its own records.  

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses, separate statements, declarations, and replies are also denied.  

 

III. Procedural Requirements 

  1. Meet and Confer 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

The Court finds that Plaintiff met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).  

 

  1. Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) 

Per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” Additionally, “Reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” (Ibid.) 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC, in which the issues were not resolved. (Min. Order, Aug. 16, 2023.) The parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding issues of further discovery prior to the next conference. (Ibid.) On September 8, 2023, the parties met once more for an IDC, wherein the issues were resolved. (Min. Order, Sept. 8, 2023.) Defense counsel was ordered to turn over additional responses to Plaintiff by September 29, 2023, and Plaintiff’s motions to compel further were continued to October 9, 2023 and October 10, 2023. (Ibid.) 

 

  1. Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements for each motion to compel further. 

 

IV. Motion to Compel Further Responses 

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:   

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.   

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.   

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.    

 

CCP § 2033.290 (a) provides that on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:  

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. 

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. 

At the IDC on September 8, 2023, the Court already reviewed Termirzavants’ discovery responses. Based upon the Court’s recollection, the Court ordered Termirzavants to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 2-3, 4-13, 16, 19-20 & 23-25, and further responses to RFAs Nos. 1 and 2 by September 29, 2023. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to these same discovery requests because Termirzavants did not provide further responses. In opposition, Termirzavants’ merely provides copies of the initial amended responses served on May 5, 2023, which is clearly not in compliance with the Court’s September 8, 2023 order to provide further responses to those responses.  

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 2-3, 4-13, 16, 19-20 & 23-25, and compel further responses to RFAs, set one, Nos. 1 and 2 are GRANTED.¿Termirzavants is ordered to provide further responses to the requests within twenty (20) days. 

 

V. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.  (CCP §2031.310(h).)  

For each motion to compel, Plaintiff is awarded four hours to prepare the motion, two hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once) at the requested rate of $550 an hour, for a total of $7,150 in attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded $68.40 as filing costs for each motion, for a total of $136.80 in costs. 

Sanctions imposed against Termirzavants and Termirzavants’ counsel, jointly and severally. Termirzavants and/or Termirzavants’ counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $7,286.80, within twenty (20) days.    

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 9th day of October 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court