Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV03455, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03455    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

(3)   Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

(4)   Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Advanced Skin Care Center Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,720.

If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)¿

Plaintiff asserts that she served Defendant with the Requests for Production of Documents (1) directly, by mail, on March 29, 2023, and (2) on April 20, 2023, by email to Defendant’s counsel.  (Banayan Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Banayan Decl., Exs. A, B.)  The court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that she properly served this discovery on Defendant.

First, Plaintiff was required to serve discovery on Defendant in the same manner as service of summons before Defendant made an appearance in this action.  Thus, service of the Requests for Production of Documents by mail on March 29, 2023 was invalid.  (Banayan Decl., Ex. A.)

Second, the court acknowledges that Plaintiff has also attached a copy of an email to Defendant’s counsel.  (Banayan Decl., Ex. B [April 20, 2023 email to Defendant’s counsel stating “Please find attached, a courtesy copy of the discovery that was previously propounded on your clients prior to the answer being filed”].)  However, Plaintiff did not attach a proof of electronic service of the Requests for Production on Defendant’s counsel.  Thus, the court finds that a copy of this email, alone, is insufficient to establish service.

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and for monetary sanctions, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new motion establishing service of the discovery on Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (b), (c).)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,720.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)¿¿

The court finds that Plaintiff has not established service of her Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant because (1) Plaintiff was not permitted, as set forth above, to serve Defendant with the Form Interrogatories by mail before Defendant appeared in this action, and (2) Plaintiff did not submit a proof of electronic service on Defendant’s counsel.  (Banayan Decl., Ex. A [proof of service of Form Interrogatories by mail], Ex. B [email to Defendant’s counsel].)

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for monetary sanctions, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new motion establishing service of the discovery on Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,720.

The court finds that Plaintiff has not established service of her Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant because (1) Plaintiff was not permitted, as set forth above, to serve Defendant with the Special Interrogatories by mail before Defendant made an appearance in this action, and (2) Plaintiff did not submit a proof of electronic service on Defendant’s counsel.  (Banayan Decl., Ex. A [proof of service of Special Interrogatories by mail], Ex. B [email to Defendant’s counsel].)

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for monetary sanctions, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new motion establishing service of the discovery on Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).)

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Plaintiff filed the pending motion to deem requests for admissions admitted on June 21, 2023, requesting that the court order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters “specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions served on March 29, 2023 be deemed admitted.”  (Notice of Mot., pp. 1:28-2:2.)  Plaintiff has further requested an award of monetary sanctions against “Defendant and its counsel[.]”  (Notice of Mot., p. 2:2-5.)

First, court finds that Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion do not sufficiently set forth the order being sought.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1110, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010, 2023.040 [request for sanctions must identify every person against whom the sanction is sought].)

Specifically, the court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the defendant against whom relief is sought.  In the notice of motion, Plaintiff has instead, as set forth above, requested an order deeming admitted the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters set forth in the Requests for Admissions that she served on March 29, 2023.  (Notice of Mot., pp. 1:27-2:2.)  Plaintiff has not stated on which defendant those Requests for Admissions were served.  (Ibid.)  Moreover, although Plaintiff has asserted that “Defendant” has not served responses to that discovery, Plaintiff does not define “Defendant” in the motion and therefore has not made clear which of the three named defendants are the subject of this motion.  (Mot., pp. 3:4, 3:10-11, 3:13-20, 4:15-18, 5:8-1 [referencing “Defendant”].)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion, in omitting the name of the defendant that is the subject of this motion, are incomplete, do not sufficiently apprise the named defendants of the order being sought (i.e., against whom Plaintiff is moving to have admissions admitted), and are therefore deficient.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010, 2023.040; Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 137-138 [“Section 1010’s requirement is for the benefit of the party upon whom the notice is served, to make him or her aware of the issues to be raised in the motion’” and “to cause the moving party to sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court”] [internal quotations omitted].) 

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff has moved to deem admitted the matters set forth in the Requests for Admission directed to Defendant, the court finds that Plaintiff has not established service of the Requests for Admission on Defendant because (1) Plaintiff was not permitted, as set forth above, to serve Defendant with the Requests for Admissions by mail before Defendant appeared in this action, and (2) Plaintiff did not submit a proof of electronic service of the Requests for Admissions on Defendant’s counsel.  (Banayan Decl., Exs. A-B.)

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the genuineness of the documents and truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a new motion that (1) provides sufficient notice to the parties of the relief being sought, and (2) establishes service of the discovery on Defendant.

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents, without prejudice.

The court denies plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, without prejudice.

The court denies plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, without prejudice.

The court denies plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, without prejudice. 

The court orders plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 19, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court