Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 20STCV30445, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20STCV30445, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30445 Hearing Date: May 22, 2023 Dept: K

1. Defendant Chawkat Jajieh’s Motion for Order Compelling [Further] Responses to

Special Interrogatories is DENIED as MOOT, except as to the issue of sanctions. Sanctions

are awarded in the reduced amount of $710.00 and are payable within 30 days from the

date of the notice of ruling.

2. Defendant Chawkat Jajieh’s Motion for Order Compelling [Further] Responses to

Request for Production is DENIED as MOOT, except as to the issue of sanctions. Sanctions

are awarded in the reduced amount of $710.00 and are payable within 30 days from the

date of the notice of ruling.

Background

Plaintiff Gabriel Arthur Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about November 30, 2018, Plaintiff was a patron at the Valley Entertainment, Inc. dba Bliss Showgirls (“Bliss”) located at 13217 Valley Blvd., Bassett, California (“Premises”). Plaintiff sustained injuries after being assaulted by security guards on the Premises.

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against and Defendants Bliss, Chawkat Jajieh (“C. Jajieh”), Laura Jajieh (“Jajieh”) and Does 1-50 for:

1. Premises Liability

2. Negligence

3. Respondeat Superior

4. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention of Employees

5. Battery

6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7. Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51.7

8. Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1

9. Assault

On August 17, 2021, this action was transferred from Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court to this department.

The Final Status Conference is set for September 26, 2023. Trial is set for October 10, 2023.

1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Special Interrogatories

Legal Standard

“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (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[, and/or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Discussion

C. Jajieh moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses, without further objection, to C. Jajieh’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 1-135). C. Jajieh also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,722.00.

The motion is denied as moot, except as to the issue of sanctions. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “response” to the instant motion, advising therein that Plaintiff has provided further responses. (Mesaros Decl., ¶ 8.)

Sanctions

Again, C. Jajieh seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,722.00 [calculated as follows: 10 hours preparing motion, plus 3 hours preparing reply, plus 3 hours preparing for and attending hearing at $325.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee (Note: This actually totals $5,260.00, not $5,722.00)].

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $710.00 (i.e., 2 hours at $325.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

2. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Request for Production

Legal Standard

“[T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Discussion

C. Jajieh moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses, without further objection, to C. Jajieh’s Request for Production, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 1-100). C. Jajieh also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,722.00.

The motion is denied as moot, except as to the issue of sanctions. Again, on May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “response” to the instant motion, advising therein that Plaintiff has provided further responses. (Mesaros Decl., ¶ 8.)

Sanctions

C. Jajieh seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,722.00 [calculated as follows: 10 hours preparing motion, plus 3 hours preparing reply, plus 3 hours preparing for and attending hearing at $325.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee (Note: This actually totals $5,260.00, not $5,722.00)].