Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case BC640157 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC640157, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC640157 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 39

WFG National Title Insurance Company v. Escrow Doc, et al.

Case No. BC640157

Order #1 of 5

Case Management Order

Although the parties have completed their trial documents, the pending motions and discovery violations make clear that the parties are not ready for trial. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court continues the trial date from July 25, 2022, to August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. The discovery and motions cut-off shall remain closed.

2. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Compliance with Defendants’ Discovery Obligations, per this order, for August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.

3. The Court continues the Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed against Defendants Artur Ayvazyan, Tamara Dadyan, Ara T. Haritunian, and Steven Abramson to August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.

4. The Court takes the hearing re: Long Cause Determination off-calendar, as the Court has already found that this case will need to be tried before a long cause judge.

Order #2 of 5

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions against Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas and

Defendant K-Astron Ventures, Inc. dba Konstant Closings

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Propounded upon Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Have Been Admitted – Filed on June 21, 2022 – DENIED

On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with RFAs, Set Two. (Declaration of Lori Hershorin, ¶ 2 & Exh. E-1.) The Court overrules Defendant’s objections. The responses appear to be code-compliant except with respect to the verification page, which lists the wrong discovery responses. Defendant’s counsel represented that this was a typographical error. Therefore, the Court continued the hearing to July 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. to give Defendant an opportunity to prepare a correct verification page. The Court ordered Defendant to do so—and to file the correct verification page—on or before July 22, 2022.

Defendant filed code-compliant responses on July 22, 2022, and the verification page is correct. Therefore, the motion is denied. Plaintiff has requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,035. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, as Defendant has abused the discovery process, and sanctions are mandatory on such motions. The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court orders Konstantine Kabilafkas to pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on or before August 2, 2022.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 regarding RFAs, Set Two – GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 regarding RFAs, Set Two. For the most part, Defendant’s responses are code-compliant. Form Interrogatory Number 17.1(d) requires Defendant to identify all documents and other tangible things that support his responses and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. For many of the responses, Defendant wrote: “Defendant has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable inquiry and has determined that there are no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.” This does not address the relevant criteria. Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1(d) and Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

Plaintiff has requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,035. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, as Defendant has abused the discovery process, and sanctions are mandatory on such motions. The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court orders Konstantine Kabilafkas to pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on or before August 1, 2022.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Propounded upon Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Have Been Admitted – Filed on June 21, 2022 – DENIED

On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with RFAs – Genuineness of Documents, Set Three. (Declaration of Lori Hershorin, ¶ 2 & Exh. E-1.) The Court overrules Defendant’s objections. The responses appear to be code-compliant except with respect to the verification page, which lists the wrong discovery responses. Defendant’s counsel represented that this was a typographical error. Therefore, the Court continued the hearing to July 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. to give Defendant an opportunity to prepare a correct verification page. The Court ordered Defendant to do so—and to file the correct verification page—on or before July 22, 2022.

Defendant filed code-compliant responses on July 22, 2022, and the verification page is correct. Therefore, the motion is denied. However, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, as Defendant has abused the discovery process, and sanctions are mandatory on such motions. The Court orders Konstantine Kabilafkas to pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on or before August 2, 2022. However, the Court orders that these sanctions shall run concurrently with the sanctions on Plaintiff’s other motion to deem admitted.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 regarding RFAs, Set Three – GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 regarding RFAs, Set Three. For the most part, Defendant’s responses are code-compliant. Form Interrogatory Number 17.1(d) requires Defendant to identify all documents and other tangible things that support his responses and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. For many of the responses, Defendant wrote: “Defendant has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable inquiry and has determined that there are no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.” This does not address the relevant criteria. Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1(d) and Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 - GRANTED

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to Requests for Production, Set One (“RPDs”). The RPDs were served on May 19, 2022. As of the date of the motions, no responses have been filed. Instead, Defendant made boilerplate objections. As Plaintiff timely filed this motion to compel further responses, Defendant has the burden to justify its objections to these requests. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Defendant has failed to do so.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022. Plaintiff has requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,035. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, as Defendant has abused the discovery process, and sanctions are mandatory on such motions. The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court orders Konstantine Kabilafkas to pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on or before August 2, 2022.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production, Set Two – Filed on July 1, 2022 – GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to Requests for Production, Set Two (“RPDs”). The RPDs were served on May 23, 2022. As of the date of the motions, no responses have been filed. Instead, Defendant made boilerplate objections. As Plaintiff timely filed this motion to compel further responses, Defendant has the burden to justify its objections to these requests. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Defendant has failed to do so.

Nevertheless, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to RPD #148 and RPD #149. A litigant has a qualified privilege to withhold tax returns from discovery. (See Fortunato v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 482.) However, the privilege applies only to the tax returns themselves and documents that are attached thereto. (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.) The privilege does not apply to the underlying records and data that the party used to prepare the returns. The Court grants the remainder of the motion. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Konstantine Kabilafkas (“Defendant”) to Special Interrogatories, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 – GRANTED

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”). The SROGs were served on May 19, 2022. As of the date of the motions, no responses have been filed. Instead, Defendant made boilerplate objections. As Plaintiff timely filed this motion to compel further responses, Defendant has the burden to justify its objections to these requests. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Defendant has failed to do so.

8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant K-Astron Ventures, Inc. dba Konstant Closings (“Defendant”) to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two – Filed on July 1, 2022 – GRANTED

Nevertheless, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to RPD #254 and RPD #255. A litigant has a qualified privilege to withhold tax returns from discovery. (See Fortunato v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 482.) However, the privilege applies only to the tax returns themselves and documents that are attached thereto. (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.) The privilege does not apply to the underlying records and data that the party used to prepare the returns. The Court grants the remainder of the motion. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

Plaintiff has requested sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,035. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, as Defendant has abused the discovery process, and sanctions are mandatory on such motions. The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court orders K-Astron Ventures, Inc. dba Konstant Closings to pay Plaintiff, by and through counsel, sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on or before August 2, 2022. However, the Court orders that these sanctions shall run concurrently with the sanctions on Plaintiff’s other motion to deem admitted.

9. Sanctions – The Court has ordered Defendants to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,035 on each discovery motion. However, the Court elects to run certain sanctions concurrently, as certain motions were largely duplicative. Therefore, Defendants need only pay the following sanctions:

a. Motions to Deem Admitted: $2,035

b. Motions to Compel re: FROG No. 17.1 $2,035

c. Motion to Compel re: SROGs $2,035

d. Motions to Compel re: RPDs $2,035 by either defendant

10. OSC Hearing – The Court has ordered Defendants Konstantine Kabilafkas and Defendant K-Astron Ventures, Inc. dba Konstant Closings to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, on or before August 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a declaration on or before August 3, 2022, informing the Court whether Defendants have complied with this order.

The Court issues an Order to Show Cause against Defendants Defendants Konstantine Kabilafkas and Defendant K-Astron Ventures, Inc. dba Konstant Closings (collectively, “Defendants”) why the Court should not impose one or more of the following sanctions for any failure to comply with this order: (1) An order that Defendants may not call any witnesses except themselves and may not introduce any exhibits except those contained in the joint exhibit list filed with the Court on July 8, 2022; or (2) A terminating sanction. Defendants may file a response to this OSC on or before August 4, 2022.

The OSC hearing shall be held on August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The parties may appear remotely or in-person.

11. Notice – Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #3 of 5

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion against Defendant Ara Haritunian

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Ara Haritunian (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 - GRANTED

Nevertheless, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to RPD #1 and RPD #2. A litigant has a qualified privilege to withhold tax returns from discovery. (See Fortunato v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 482.) However, the privilege applies only to the tax returns themselves and documents that are attached thereto. (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.) The privilege does not apply to the underlying records and data that the party used to prepare the returns. The Court grants the remainder of the motion. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

The Court issues an Order to Show Cause against Defendant why the Court should not impose a terminating sanction for any failure to comply with this discovery order. The Court has previously ordered Defendant to comply with certain requirements and orders, to no avail. The Court previously has imposed monetary sanctions, which have not compelled Defendant’s compliance with his obligations. Therefore, the Court provides notice that if Defendant does not comply with this order, absent good cause, the Court intends to strike his answer, which would permit Plaintiff to seek entry of default and default judgment.

The OSC hearing shall be held on August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The Court authorizes the parties to appear remotely or in-person. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a declaration on or before August 3, 2022, informing the Court whether Defendants have complied with this order. Defendant may file a response on or before August 4, 2022.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #4 of 5

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motion against United Escrow

On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing its motion to compel further responses from United Escrow. Therefore, the Court does not decide this motion.

Order #5 of 5

Discovery Motions against Steven Abramson

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Propounded upon Defendant Steven Abramson (“Defendant”) to Have Been Admitted, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 – No Tentative Order

Plaintiff served Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) on Defendant on April 28, 2022, both electronically and by mail. Because Defendant is a self-represented party, the Court finds that service by mail was effective, meaning that the deadline for his responses was June 2, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded to the RFAs. Defendant filed an opposition stating that he intends to provide code-compliant responses in advance of the hearing on this motion. Therefore, the Court has no tentative order on this motion.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Steven Abramson (“Defendant”) to Request for Production of Documents, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 – Off-Calendar

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing its motion to compel further responses from Defendant Steven Abramson to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Therefore, the Court does not decide this motion.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Steven Abramson (“Defendant”) to Special Interrogatories, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 – Granted

Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), on Defendant Steven Abramson, on April 28, 2022, both electronically and by mail. Because Defendant is a self-represented party, the Court finds that service by mail was effective, meaning that the deadline for his responses was June 2, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded to the SROGs. The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s opposition. The Court grants the motion and orders Defendant to provide code-compliant responses to the SROGs, to the extent he has not already done so, on or before August 2, 2022.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,245 against Defendant. The Court grants the request, finding that Defendant has abused the discovery process, entitling Plaintiff to sanctions. The Court finds that the requested amount is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,245 on or before August 2, 2022. However, the Court orders that these sanctions shall run concurrently with the sanctions on Plaintiff’s other motions against Defendant.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests from Defendant Steven Abramson (“Defendant”) to Requests for Production, Set Two – Filed on July 1, 2022 – Granted in Part; Denied in Part

Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set Two (“RPDs”) on Defendant Steven Abramson, on April 28, 2022, both electronically and by mail. Because Defendant is a self-represented party, the Court finds that service by mail was effective, meaning that the deadline for his responses was June 2, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded to the RPDs. The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s opposition.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to RPD #236 and RPD #237. A litigant has a qualified privilege to withhold tax returns from discovery. (See Fortunato v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 482.) However, the privilege applies only to the tax returns themselves and documents that are attached thereto. (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.) The privilege does not apply to the underlying records and data that the party used to prepare the returns. The Court grants the remainder of the motion. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant supplemental responses on or before August 2, 2022.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Steven Abramson (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatories, Set One – Filed on July 1, 2022 – Granted

Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”), on Defendant Steven Abramson, on April 28, 2022, both electronically and by mail. Because Defendant is a self-represented party, the Court finds that service by mail was effective, meaning that the deadline for his responses was June 2, 2022. To date, Defendant has not responded to the FROGs. The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant’s opposition. The Court grants the motion and orders Defendant to provide code-compliant responses to the FROGs, to the extent he has not already done so, on or before August 2, 2022.

6. Sanctions – The Court has ordered Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,245 on each discovery motion. However, the Court elects to run all sanctions concurrent. Therefore, Defendant need only pay sanctions in the amount of $1,245 in total on or before August 2, 2022.

7. OSC Hearing – The Court has ordered Defendant Steven Abramson to provide code-compliant responses, without objections, on or before August 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a declaration on or before August 3, 2022, informing the Court whether Defendant has complied with this order.

The Court issues an Order to Show Cause against Defendant Steven Abramson why the Court should not impose one or more of the following sanctions for any failure to comply with this order: (1) An order that Defendant may not call any witnesses except himself and may not introduce any exhibits except those contained in the joint exhibit list filed with the Court on July 8, 2022; or (2) A terminating sanction. Defendants may file a response to this OSC on or before August 4, 2022.

The OSC hearing shall be held on August 8, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The parties may appear remotely or in-person.

8. Notice – The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.