TENTATIVE RULING 

Calendar:    5

Date:         12/6/2024

Case No:    23 GDCV00858 Trial Date: August 18, 2025 

Case Name: Khatagov v. Valet Service Unit, LLC, et al.. 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (3 Motions)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Kazbek Khatagov     

Responding Party: Defendant G Lounge (No Opposition) 

Proof of service timely filed:  ok

Correct Address:       ok

16/+5 day lapse:  ok  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One 

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One  

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One  

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served :    December 8, 2023 

Extension to Respond to: June 17, 2024    (Ex. E) 

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

 

Date Motion served:  September 5, 2024     Timely 

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal 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.”  CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to demands to produce documents.

In this case, form and special interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to defendant G Lounge, and defendant has failed to serve timely responses, after being permitted several extensions of time to do so.  The court grants the motions and orders further verified responses, without objection, to be served by defendant, and order that responsive documents be produced.   

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.”  A similar provision applies to document demands.  See CCP § 2031.300(c).

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, defendant has failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and made these motions necessary.  Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct.  Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  Sanctions must be awarded.  The sanctions requested are $1,649.15 for each of three motions.  1 hour at $350 per hour is sought to appear at the hearing for each of the motions, which will be heard together, so this time will be adjusted.  Each motion also seeks 1.5 hour at $450 per hour to review opposition and prepare reply, when there is no opposition and any reply should be brief, so that this time will also be adjusted as follows: 2 hours attorney time at $450.00 per hour for each motion for total attorneys fees of $900 per motion with 1 additional hour of attorney time at $350 per hour allocated for attorney’s remote appearance for the hearing. 

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted.  

UNOPPOSED Motion to Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.  Defendant G Lounge is ordered to serve verified responses Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One, without objection, within 10 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 $1,250 ( 1 hour @ $350/hour) (3 hours requested) and ( 2 hours @ $450 per hour) (1 hour requested for appearance at the hearing) plus filing fees of $74.15 [Amount Requested $1,649.15], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Kazbek Khatagov, and against defendant G Lounge, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a) and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order. 

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant G Lounge is ordered to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection, within 10 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 $ 900.00 ( 0 hours @ $350/hour) (3 hours requested) and ( 2 hours @ $450 per hour) plus filing fees of $74.15 [Amount Requested $1,649.15], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Kazbek Khatagov, and against defendant G Lounge, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a) and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order. 

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents , Set One, and Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. 

Defendant G Lounge is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to  Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 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 $ 900.00 ( 0 hours @ $350/hour) (3 hours requested) and ( 2 hours @ $450 per hour) (1.5 hours requested) plus filing fees of $74.15 [Amount Requested $1,649.15], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Kazbek Khatagov, and against defendant G Lounge, payable within 30 days.  CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a) and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Counsel for moving party is ordered to prepare an order for sanctions and submit it on eCourt by noon today in accordance with this order. 

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.