Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV39307, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39307    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production, Set One is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant Stewart J. Levin regarding the alleged deficiencies in Defendant’s Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production.

If, following that good faith meet and confer conference, the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, Plaintiff may file a Motion to Compel Further that details Plaintiff’s efforts to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action related to Plaintiff’s representation in an underlying wrongful death action. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges as follows.

Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat’s (“Sedaghat”) father, Nasser Sedaghat (“Decedent”) was a patient at Defendant Tarzana Health and Rehab (“Tarzana Health”) for a temporary period. (SAC ¶ 11.) While under Tarzana Health’s care, Decedent was not given proper medical attention. (SAC ¶ 12.) Due to this neglect, Decedent passed away there. (SAC ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff hired an attorney, Defendant Stewart J. Levin (“Levin”), to represent him in his wrongful death action. (SAC ¶ 15.) Levin failed to prepare the case for trial, and acted in Levin’s best interest, contrary to the interest of Sedaghat and Sedaghat’s siblings. (SAC ¶¶ 15-17.) Levin worked in conjunction with Defendants Tarzana Health, Kamran Kamrava, M.D. (“Dr. Kamrava”), Michael Lamb (“Lamb”), and Matthew Pascale (“Pascale”) to secure a settlement favorable to Defendants, and contrary to Sedaghat’s interests. (SAC ¶ 17.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 14, 2020, Sedaghat filed the Complaint against Levin asserting three causes of action:

1.    Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

2.    Undue Influence; and,

3.    Conspiracy

On April 15, 2021, Sedaghat filed the First Amended Complaint, adding Defendant Dr. Kamrava and causes of action for Unjust Coercion, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Obstruction of Justice, and Extortion.

On August 6, 2021, Levin filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

On September 16, 2021, Dr. Kamrava filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

On April 21, 2022, this Court sustained Levin’s Demurrer to the Second and Fifth Causes of Action without leave to amend, and sustained Levin’s Demurrer to the First, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action with Thirty days leave to amend. Additionally, the Court sustained Dr. Kamrava’s Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action without leave to amend, and sustained Dr. Kamrava’s Demurrer to the Third and Fourth Causes of Action with thirty days leave to amend. The Court denied both parties’ Motions to Strike as moot.

Also on April 21, 2022, Sedaghat filed a Motion to Compel Further Response to his Request for Production of Documents.

On May 18, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice Sedaghat’s Motion to Compel Further Response, allowing Sedagaht to file a new motion once the parties exhausted meet and confer efforts and Sedaghat requested an Informal Discovery Conference.

On May 23, 2022, Sedaghat requested an IDC regarding his Motion to Compel Further Response.

On July 25, 2022, the Court held Sedaghat’s requested IDC. Sedaghat failed to appear. The Court ordered Sedaghat to file his Motion to Compel Discovery by August 24, 2022, and informed both parties that the Court would impose monetary sanctions on any party that does not operate in good faith.

On June 7, 2022, Sedaghat filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, adding Defendants Michael V. Lamb, Matthew S. Pascale, and SavaSenior Care Administrative Services. The Second Amended Complaint asserts ten causes of action:

1.    Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

2.    Undue Influence;

3.    Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

4.    Conspiracy;

5.    Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Mental and Emotional Distress;

6.    Misappropriation of Settlement Funds;

7.    Defamation;

8.    Extortion;

9.    Coercion to Prevent Legal Right; and,

10.                   Recission.

On July 8, 2022, Dr. Kamrava filed a Demurrer to the SAC with Motion to Strike.

On August 4, 2022, Levin filed a Demurrer to the SAC with Motion to Strike.

On August 25, 2022, Pascale filed a Motion to Strike.

On September 7, 2022, Sedaghat dismissed Lamb without prejudice.

On September 8, 2022, Sedaghat dismissed Pascale without prejudice.

On November 1, 2022, the Court sustained Dr. Kamrava’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint in the entirety without leave to amend.  

Also on November 1, 2022, the Court sustained Levin’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint as to all but the First Cause of Action.

On November 9, 2022, Sedaghat filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Response.

On March 23, 2023, Levin filed an Opposition.

On April 3, 2023, Sedaghat filed a Reply.[1]

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

Sedaghat moves to compel further response to his Request for Production, Set One. This Motion to Compel has been the subject of some controversy, as Sedaghat previously filed this motion, but was told to refile it after meeting and conferring with Levin and requesting an IDC, if necessary. Sedaghat requested an IDC but failed to appear at that IDC. The Court allowed Sedaghat to file the instant motion to compel and ordered both parties to act in good faith in the discovery process.

Here, Sedaghat contends that Levin has failed to respond to Request for Production numbers 1-13.

In Opposition, Levin notes that Levin served Sedaghat supplemental responses on May 10, 2022. (Diem Decl. ¶ 19.) Nonetheless, Sedaghat has not engaged in any meet and confer process regarding these supplemental responses. All that Sedaghat has informed Defendant’s Counsel regarding the justification for his motion to compel further is that Levin’s “responses remain deficient.” (Diem Decl. ¶ 9.)

“A motion under subdivision (a) [of CCP § 2031.310] shall . . . be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”¿ (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Moreover, upon review of the instant motion, Sedaghat fails to address how Levin’s objections are improper. For instance, Request for Production Number 7 requires Levin to “Identify and produce any letters and documents you sent to Department of Health.” In his initial response, Levin objected on several grounds, including that the request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, and that the request was overbroad, unduly burdensome and harassing.

In Levin’s Supplemental Response, Levin, without waiving his objections, states that he will provide all correspondence sent to the Department of Health in the underlying action.

Levin’s objections are well-taken. Does Sedaghat request that Levin provide every piece of correspondence that he has ever exchanged with the Department of Health? Does this include correspondence sent in litigation other than the instant matter? Sedaghat makes no effort to clarify these questions or to assist Levin in responding to his discovery request.

Simply put, Sedaghat has put both Levin and the Court in an untenable position by refusing to meet and confer regarding Levin’s alleged discovery deficiencies. This is especially problematic as in Levin’s supplemental responses he indicates an intention to provide compliant discovery responses to more reasonably tailored requests.

Accordingly, Sedaghat’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED without prejudice. Sedaghat is ordered to engage in a good faith meet and confer process before filing any further discovery motions. His failure to detail such meet and confer efforts in any such motion will result in further sanctions.

Finally, the Court notes that Sedaghat, again, failed to serve Levin’s Counsel, Robin Diem, on the instant motion. Sedagaht is again ordered to serve Diem on all other motions in this matter.

                        II.          REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Next, the parties both move for sanctions against one another pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.

As to Sedaghat’s request, the Court notes that “a self-represented litigant, whether an attorney or not, is not entitled to recover fees as a discovery sanction, but may recover reasonable expenses incurred. (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4^th 1015, 1020.) Sedaghat fails to identify any reasonable expense for which sanctions would be warranted. In addition, as Levin notes in Opposition, Sedaghat failed to identify each person against whom sanctions are sought, or file a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary damages sought as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.

As to Levin’s request, the Court finds that Sedaghat’s repeated refusal to engage in any good faith meet and confer request, despite this Court’s repeated demand that he do so, constitutes an abuse of the discovery process sufficient to warrant sanctions under section 2023.010. However, the Court finds Levin’s request for sanctions in the amount of $3,750.00 excessive. (Diem Decl. ¶ 20.)

Accordingly, Levin’s request for monetary sanctions against Sedaghat is GRANTED in the amount of $1,875.00

DATED: April 4, 2023 

____________________________

Hon. John P. Doyle 

Judge of the Superior Court