Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV02464, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV02464, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02464 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

MARIA DE LA LUZ CISNEROS-MANCILLAS, an individual; MARYAM BOKTOR CISNEROS, an individual; and ESHAK BOKTOR CISNEROS, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, MARIA DE LA LUZ CISNEROS-MANCILLAS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SUSANNA TADEVOSYAN, an individual; DOES1 to 50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV02464

Hearing Date: February 27, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.

TENTATIVE ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant SUSANNA TADEVOSYAN

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff MARYAM BOKTOR CISNEROS

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs Maria De La Luz Cisneros-Mancillas; Maryam Boktor Cisneros; and Eshak Boktor Cisneros, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria De La Luz Cisneros-Mancillas filed a form complaint on November 20, 2023, against defendant Susanna Tadevosyan. Plaintiffs allege motor vehicle and negligence causes of action. Plaintiffs allege that on December 3, 2022, at or near Verdugo Boulevard and Park Place in Glendale, CA 91020, defendant negligently and carelessly operated her vehicle which caused injuries and damages to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege defendant violated Vehicle Code section 22350.

Defendant filed the instant motions on September 20, 2024. Plaintiff Maryam Boktor Cisneros (plaintiff) filed her oppositions on February 11, 2025. Defendant filed her replies on February 19, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to interrogatories, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted/Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

Defendant moves for an order compelling responses to Requests for Admission, Set One or alternatively deeming them admitted and compelling plaintiff Maryam Boktor Cisneros to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. When responses are not provided to Requests for Admission, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 allows the propounding party to deem the admissions admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280(b).) An order compelling responses is appropriate when the propounding party seeks further responses.

Defendant served plaintiff Maryam with Request for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on April 17, 2024. (Chowdhury Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) On May 21, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension which was granted, and discovery responses were then due on June 4, 2024. (Chowdhury Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. B.) On June 4, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel requested an additional two-week extension, which was also granted, and responses were due on June 18, 2024. (Chowdhury Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. C.) On June 18, 2024, plaintiff served unverified responses. (Chowdhury Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. D.) Defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel regarding the unverified responses on July 5, 2024, but received no response at the time of drafting this motion. (Chowdhury Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7; Exh. E.)

Plaintiff’s counsel provides the email showing that counsel served plaintiff’s verifications to Requests for Admission and Special Interrogatories on February 11, 2025. (Opp. to RFAs, Santiago Decl., ¶ 11; Exh. 3.) Despite this email, it is seems that verifications were not served for the Special Interrogatories as plaintiff does not address this in her opposition to the Special Interrogatories motion and defendant maintains that verifications were not provided. However, as discussed below, verifications to the Special Interrogatories are not necessary.

Regarding the order deeming Requests for Admission admitted, the unverified responses were served on June 18, 2024, and the verification was served on February 11, 2025. Accordingly, the motion is moot.

Defendant also seeks responses to the requests for Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff served responses in the form of objections. When a party serves responses with only objections, a verification is not necessary, and the responses are complete. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250(a), “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.”) Accordingly, the motion is denied.

If defendant seeks further responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One she is required to timely file motions to compel further responses and provide a separate statement in compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1345, detailing why further responses should be ordered.

B. Sanctions

Defendant seeks an order requiring plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney from the Law Offices of Levin and Nalbandyan to pay monetary sanctions to defendant’s counsel in the sum of $960.00 per motion. Sanctions are not warranted for the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One because plaintiff provided complete responses. Sanctions are appropriate for the motion regarding the Requests for Admission, Set One as plaintiff did not provide verifications to those responses until after the motion was filed. Accordingly, the court awards sanctions in the amount of $640.00 (2 hours at $320/hour) against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney from the Law Offices of Levin and Nalbandyan.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One admitted, as moot.

The court GRANTS the request for sanctions regarding the Requests for Admission motion. The court orders plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, the Law Offices of Levin and Nalbandyan, to pay defense counsel, Law Offices of Richardson, Fair & Cohen, $640.00 within 20 days.

The court DENIES the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.