Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 19STCV09195, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09195    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Background

On December 16, 2022, defendant/cross-complainant Farhad Yaghoubi (“Cross-Complainant”) filed the instant motion to compel responses from cross-defendants Albert Arana and Ausencio Rene Luna (“Cross-Defendants”) to Form Interrogatories (“FROG”).  Additionally, Cross-Complainant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,896.00.  On March 22, 2023, Cross-Defendants filed an opposition.  On March 28, 2023, Cross-Complainant filed a reply.

Motion to Compel

On September 13, 2022, Cross-Complainant served the FROG on Cross-Defendants.  (Kohrs Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. 1.)  On October 28, 2022, Cross-Complainant inquired as to Cross-Defendants’ overdue responses.  (Id. ¶ 3; Exh. 2.)  Cross-Defendants requested a 30-day extension, which Cross-Complainant granted.  (Ibid.)  On December 10, 2022, after Cross-Defendants failed to serve responses pursuant to the 30-day extension, Cross-Complainant again inquired as to Cross-Defendants’ overdue responses.  (Ibid.)  Cross-Defendants failed to respond. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Cross-Defendants contend that they served responses on Cross-Complainant on August 12, 2022, thereby rendering this motion moot.  (Opposition at p. 2.)  However, in reply Cross-Complainant concedes that discovery responses were served but notes that Cross-Defendants’ responses were served on December 30, 2022, not August 12, 2022, as Cross-Defendants assert. (Kohrs Decl., Exhs. 1-2.) Additionally, Cross-Complainant argues that though Cross-Defendants served responses after the filing of the instant motion, sanctions are still warranted under California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a).[1]

Sanctions

Though Cross-Defendants have served responses, Cross-Complainant contends that monetary sanctions are still warranted pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a). Rule 3.1348(a) states that the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel even where “the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  Section 2023.030(a) states that the court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process . . . pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

Here, Cross-Defendants provide no justification for why the discovery responses were served substantially late.  Moreover, as Cross-Complainant notes on reply, had Cross-Defendants’ Counsel responded to any of Cross-Complainant’s Counsel’s emails inquiring as to the status of the responses, this motion would have been unnecessary.

The Court finds Cross-Defendants’ failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process.  Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Cross-Defendants and Counsel.  The Court finds that the amount requested - $1,896.00 – adequately compensates Cross-Complainant for the attorney’s fees (5.2 hours of attorney time billed at $350 an hour) incurred for preparation and filing of the instant motion and appearance at the hearing, and the $76.00 of costs incurred filing the instant motion.  Cross-Defendants Albert Arana and Ausencio Rene Luna and Counsel are jointly and severally ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,896.00 to Cross-Complainant by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Cross-Complainant Farhad Yaghoubi’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories is denied as moot.

Cross-Complainant’s request for sanctions is granted. Cross-Defendants Albert Arana and Ausencio Rene Luna and Counsel are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,896.00 to Cross-Complainant by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

The moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: April 3, 2023                                               ___________________________

                                                                                          Hon. John P. Doyle

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court