Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV38878, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38878    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Karen Benitez’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Hamideh Manshadi is granted.  Defendant Manshadi is to appear for deposition within 30 days or earlier if agreed by the parties.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Manshadi on the motion to compel deposition is granted in the reduced amount of $885.00, comprised of 1.5 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fees, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Karen Benitez’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Hamideh Manshadi to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff Karen Benitez’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Hamideh Manshadi, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant Hamideh Manshadi on the motions to compel Form Interrogatories (General and Employment), is granted in the reduced amount of $1,605.00, comprised of 1.7 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and $120.00 in filing fees, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Karen Benitez’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Corral Six, LLC, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) is granted. 

Plaintiff Karen Benitez’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Corral Six, LLC, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant Corral Six on the motion to compel Form Interrogatories – General and Special Interrogatories is granted in the reduced to a total of $1,605.00, comprised of 1.7 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and $120.00 in filing fees, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff failed to separately move for Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One), and therefore the Court does not rule on Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Corral Six, LLC, to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One).

          Plaintiff Karen Benitez (“Benitez”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order to compel Defendant Hossein Manshadi (“Manshadi”) (“Defendant”) to appear for deposition in compliance with Plaintiff’s noticed deposition. (Notice of Motion Depo, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant Manshadi and his counsel of record in the amount of $2,260.00.  (Notice of Motion Depo, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed for an order compelling Defendant Manshadi to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“General FROG”).  (Notice of Motion General FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant Manshadi in the amount of $1,270.00.  (Notice of Motion General FROG, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed for an order compelling Defendant Manshadi to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) (“Employment FROG”).  (Notice of Motion Employment FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant Manshadi in the amount of $1,270.00.  (Notice of Motion Employment FROG, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed for an order compelling Defendant Corral Six, LLC (“Corral Six”) (“Defendant”) to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“General FROG”).  (Notice of Motion FROG Corral, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant Corral Six in the amount of $1,270.00.  (Notice of Motion FROG Corral, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed for an order compelling Defendant Corral Six to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”).  (Notice of Motion SROG Corral, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant Corral Six in the amount of $1,270.00.  (Notice of Motion SROG Corral, pg. 2.)

A.   Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Manshadi’s Deposition

          Background

          On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant Manshadi’s counsel requesting Defendant Manshadi provide mutually agreeable deposition date in July 2022 for Defendant Manshadi, among others, by May 30, 2022, to which Defendant’s counsel did not respond.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶3, Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares he emailed Defendant’s counsel a second time on May 24, 2022, requesting deposition dates, to which Defendant’s counsel did not respond.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶4, Exh. 2.)  On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel requesting dates to depose Defendant Manshadi in September 2022 by August 8, 2022.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶5, Exh. 3.)  On August 2, 2022, Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff’s counsel, stating that Plaintiff’s counsel needed to answer Defendant’s counsel’s last email [regarding dismissing the “unrelated” entities and the individuals], and only then could they discuss depositions.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶6, Exh. 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel responded that there was nothing to discuss, and Defendant’s counsel’s earlier email was unrelated to the issues of Depositions, particularly for a named party which Defense counsel has already filed an answer on behalf of, and stated the depositions would be unilaterally scheduled if Defendants failed to provide agreeable dates by September 8.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶7, Exh. 5.)  On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff issued a Notice of Deposition of Hossein Manshadi for September 14, 2022.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶8, Exh. 6.)  On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confirm Defendant Manshadi’s deposition.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶9, Exh. 7.)  Defendant Manshadi’s counsel responded stating counsel and deponent would not appear due to the unavailability of Defendants’ counsel and stating that an objection had been served on September 9, 2022.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶10, Exh. 8.)  Plaintiff’s counsel responded, stating no objections had been received and requesting a proof of service, and even if an objection had been served on Friday, September 9 by mail, the objection was untimely, and Defendant Manshadi’s deposition would not be taken off calendar unless alternative dates were provided by the end of the day.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶11, Exh. 9.)  Following receipt of the untimely objections, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel to meet and confer, confirming Defendants’ failure to serve a timely objection, and again requesting alternative dates by the end of the day in order to avoid filing the instant motion.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶13, Exh. 11.)  Defendants’ counsel responded at the end of the day at 4:30 p.m. on September 13, stating they would not provide dates that day.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶14, Exh. 12.)  Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a final email stating that the depositions were not unilaterally set, that their objections were not valid, and that Plaintiff would be proceeding with a motion to compel and request for sanctions if no dates were provided by end of the day. Defendants never responded to this email. (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶15, Exh. 13.)

          On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant Manshadi has not filed an opposition.

Meet and Confer

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2) provides that, “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition . . . by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

Plaintiff’s counsel attached a meet and confer declaration stating that prior to noticing Defendant Manshadi’s deposition, Plaintiff made three separate attempts to meet and confer and obtain mutually agreeable deposition dates prior to issuing the deposition, which Defendant’s counsel ignored.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶¶3-5, 7, Exhs. 1-3, 5.)  Plaintiff’s three prior meet and confer attempts requested that Defendant’s counsel provide available dates for Defendant Manshadi’s deposition. (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶16, Exhs. 1-3, 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that when Defendant did not respond for a third time by the requested date, Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Defendant Manshadi. (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶17.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares he then made an additional attempt to meet and confer after Defense counsel advised of his refusal to appear on September 13th by requesting additional dates. (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶13.)  Plaintiff’s counsel adequately demonstrates good faith efforts to resolve the issues in the instant motion without the Court’s intervention.

Motion to Compel Deposition

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides that, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination . . ., the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.”

C.C.P. §2025.410(a), provides that, “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with [the notice requirements in C.C.P. §§2025.210 through 2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Plaintiff is entitled to an order to compel deposition of Defendant Manshadi pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 because he is a party in the instant case.  Plaintiff duly noticed Defendant Manshadi prior to the noticed date of deposition.  (C.C.P. §2025.280(a).)  Defendant Manshadi’s untimely objection to the deposition the day before the deposition date waived Defendant’s objection.  (C.C.P. §2025.410(a).)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Defendant Manshadi is granted.  Defendant Manshadi is to appear for deposition within 30 days or earlier if agreed by the parties.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests discovery sanctions in the amount of $2,260.00 against Defendant and his counsel of record for reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred on this motion.  Plaintiff’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $550.00.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶19.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares a grand total of 4 hours has been or will be expended on the instant motion consisting of 0.5 hour of attorney time attempting to meet and confer prior to scheduling the deposition and drafting the notice of deposition, 1.5 hours of attorney time in drafting the motion, compiling supporting exhibits, and researching the law; and an anticipated 1.0 hour to prepare a reply, and 1.0 hour for attending the hearing, as well as $60 in costs for bringing the motion.  (Decl. of Ben-Ari ¶20.)  Reasonable fees in connection with the motion do not include time spent meeting and conferring nor anticipated hours. Additionally, since the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff’s counsel will not spend time preparing a reply, and Plaintiff’s motion will be heard with four other motions at the same hearing.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted sanctions in the reduced amount of $885.00, comprised of 1.5 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee.  Sanctions to be paid within 15 days.

B.    Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant Manshadi’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Employment (Set One)

Background

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“General FROG”) and Employment Law (Set One) (“Employment FROG”) on Defendant Manshadi, with responses due on September 13, 2022.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶2, Exh. 1.)  On September 15, 2022, after receiving no responses to the General and Employment FROGs, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter by email to Defendant’s counsel, requesting responses without objections by Monday, September 19, 2022, and provided dates on which counsel was available to discuss telephonically.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶3, Exh. 2.)  Defendant Manshadi’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶4.)

          On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant Manshadi has not filed oppositions.

Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories.  (C.C.P. §§2030.290; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

In general, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)

          Here, Defendant Manshadi failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories with Code-compliant, verified responses.  Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the instant motion seeking answers to Judicial Counsel-drafted form interrogatories, as Plaintiff cannot properly litigate this matter without conducting discovery.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Manshadi to provide answers to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) are granted.

          Request for Monetary Sanctions

If the party enforcing a motion to compel answers to interrogatories properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to compel unless it finds that party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.”  (C.C.P. §2030.290(c).)

C.C.P §2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose a monetary sanction against any party or attorney, or both, who has engaged in misuse of the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include, among other things, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery.  (C.C.P. §2023.010.)  Here, as stated above, Defendant failed to provide answers to Plaintiff’s General and Employment FROGs.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $550.00.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶9.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares each discovery motion took 1.2 hours to prepare, and he anticipates spending another 0.5 hours to prepare replies and 0.5 hours attending the hearing on each motion, for a total of 2.2 hours per motion.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Plaintiff’s counsel further declares the filing fee for filing each motion was $60.00 each.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,270.00 per motion for a total of $2,549.00 in sanctions.  (See Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Considering that Plaintiff’s motions are identical, unopposed, and will be heard simultaneously, the Court reduces the total number of hours requested by Plaintiff’s counsel for drafting and reviewing motions to a total of 1.2 hours.  Further, because the motions will be heard at a single hearing, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s request for fees to attend the hearing to a total of 0.5 hour.  The Court will grant filing fees for each motion, for a total of $120.00 in fees.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Manshadi on the instant motions is reduced to a total of $1,605.00, comprised of 1.7 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and $120.00 in filing fees, payable within 20 days.

C.    Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant Corral Six’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Background

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“General FROG”) and Employment Law (Set One) (“Employment FROG”) and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) on Defendant Corral Six, with responses due on September 13, 2022.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶2, Exh. 1.)  On September 15, 2022, after receiving no responses to the General and Employment FROGs, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter by email to Defendant Corral Six’s counsel, requesting responses without objections by Monday, September 19, 2022, and provided dates on which counsel was available to discuss telephonically.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶3, Exh. 2.)  Defendant Corral Six’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶4.)

          On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant Corral Six has not filed oppositions.

Plaintiff failed to file a motion to compel Defendant Corral Six to answer Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) separate from Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Corral Six to answer Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One).  Therefore, the Court does not rule on Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Corral Six to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One).

Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories.  (C.C.P. §§2030.290; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

In general, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)

          Here, Defendant Corral Six failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories with Code-compliant, verified responses.  Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the instant motion seeking answers to Judicial Counsel-drafted form interrogatories and reasonable discovery requests, as Plaintiff cannot properly litigate this matter without conducting discovery.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Corral Six to provide answers to Petitioner’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) and Special Interrogatories are granted.

          Request for Monetary Sanctions

Here, as stated above, Defendant Corral Six failed to provide answers to Plaintiff’s General FROG and SROG and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to discovery sanctions.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares his hourly rate is $550.00.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶9.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares each discovery motion took 1.2 hours to prepare, and he anticipates spending another 0.5 hours to prepare replies and 0.5 hours attending the hearing on each motion, for a total of 2.2 hours per motion.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Plaintiff’s counsel further declares the filing fee for filing each motion was $60.00 each.  (Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $1,270.00 per motion for a total of $2,549.00 in sanctions.  (See Decls. of Ben-Ari ¶¶10.)  Considering that Plaintiff’s motions are identical, unopposed, and will be heard simultaneously, the Court reduces the total number of hours requested by Plaintiff’s counsel for drafting and reviewing motions to a total of 1.2 hours.  Further, because the motions will be heard at a single hearing, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s request for fees to attend the hearing to a total of 0.5 hour.  The Court will grant filing fees for each motion, for a total of $120.00 in fees.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Corral Six on the instant motions is reduced to a total of $1,605.00, comprised of 1.7 hours of attorney time at $550.00 per hour and $120.00 in filing fees, payable within 20 days.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Manshadi is granted. Defendant Manshadi is to appear for deposition within 30 days or earlier if agreed by the parties.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Manshadi to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Manshadi to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant Manshadi are granted in a reduced total of $2,490.00, payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Corral Six to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Corral Six to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Defendant Corral Six are granted in a reduced total of $1,605.00, payable within 20 days.

Dated:  April _____, 2023

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court