TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    3

Date:         6/7/2024

Case No:    23 GDCV00360 Trial Date: 04/1/2025 

Case Name: Terteryan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Moving Party: Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company    

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ghukas Terteryan (No Opposition) 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two 

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served:    October 26, 2023 

Extension to Respond to: February 2, 2024 (Ex. B)

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

 

Date Motion served:  February 14, 2024    Timely 

OPPOSITION:  

No opposition.   

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...”  Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  

In this case, interrogatories have been directed at plaintiff and plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses.  Plaintiff has accordingly waived the right to exercise the option to produce, as well as all objections.  Defendant has appropriately moved for an order to compel responses.  The court grants the motion and orders plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objection.   

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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.”  

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).  

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a):

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.  

In this case, the motion is granted, and plaintiff has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and made the motion necessary.  Defendant has submitted evidence showing that defendant has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct.  Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  Sanctions are awarded.  The sanctions requested are $2,010, which appear high for a motion of this nature.  Three hours at $325 per hour are sought to attend the hearing, when the hearing can be attended remotely, and there is no opposition, so that any time prepare a reply will be minimal.  The fees are adjusted accordingly as follows: 3 hours attorney time for preparing motion with one hour attorney time for remote attendance at hearing for 4 hours attorney time at $325.00 per hour for total attorneys’ fees of $1,300.00.

RULING:

[No opposition]

UNOPPOSED Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Ghukas Terteryan’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED.  

Plaintiff Ghukas Terteryan is ordered to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Ghukas Terteryan [Set Two] without objection, within ten days.  

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party:  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 $1,300.00 (4.0 hours @ $325/hour) (6 hours requested) [Amount Requested $2,010], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and against plaintiff Ghukas Terteryan, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.