Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19263, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19263 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit the Remote Deposition of Incarcerated
Person, Defendant Akop Daniyelyan
Plaintiff Fyona
Mudsyan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Akop Daniyelyan to Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff Fyona Mudsyan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant
Akop Daniyelyan to Special Interrogatories (Set One).
Tentative
The motion for the deposition of
Defendant Akop Daniyelyan is granted.
The motions to compel further responses
are continued.
Background
This case arises out of an automobile
accident on September 17, 2020, on Brand Boulevard near the intersection of
Maple Street in Glendale. According to
the Complaint, Sarkees Nigoghos Sarkeesian (“Decedent”) was walking along the
sidewalk on Brand Boulevard when two moving vehicles collided, then made impact
with a parked vehicle, and then hit and killed him.
On June 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Fyona Mudsyan,
Nigoghos Nigoghos, Anita Sarkeesian-Asadorian, and the Estate of Sarkees
Nigoghos Sarkeesian by and through its Successor-In-Interest Fyona Mudsyan
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Akop Daniyelyan, Ovsep Daniyelyan, Alejandro Garcia,
Mariana Garcia, Glendale Dodge, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1
through 100. Plaintiffs assert causes of
action for (1) Negligence, (2) Negligence Per Se, (3) Negligent Hiring,
Supervision and/or Retention, and (4) Negligent Entrustment.
On August 15 and September 1, 2022,
Defendants Alejandro and Mariana Garcia filed Answers to the Complaint.
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs
assert the same four causes of action against the same Defendants.
On December 19, 2022, Akop and Ovsep
Daniyelyan filed an Answer to the FAC.
On December 20, 2022, Glendale Dodge, LLC
filed an Answer to the FAC.
The Defendants have also filed a number of
cross-complaints against each other and against fictitiously named defendants.
There are currently three motions set for
hearing on June 4, 2024
In
this first motion, filed on May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs seek
an order to take the deposition of Defendant Akop
Daniyelyan, who is currently incarcerated. Defendants
Alejandro and Mariana Garcia join in the motion. No opposition has been filed.
In the second and third motions, filed on May
6, 2024, Plaintiff Fyona Mudsyan (“Mudsyan”) moves for an order compelling
further responses from Defendant Akop Daniyelyan (“Daniyelyan”) to her Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and her Special Interrogatories (Set One). Mudsyan also seeks sanctions. Daniyelyan filed oppositions to both motions,
along with his own requests for sanctions, on May 22. Mudsyan filed replies on May 28.
The Court is
aware that there are two more discovery motions set for hearing in this case on
June 5, 2024.
Legal Standard
Motion for Deposition of Prisoner
Code of Civil Procedure section 1995
states:
“If
the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail within this state, an order for
his examination in the jail upon deposition, or for his temporary removal and
production before a court or officer may be made as follows: 1. By
the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless
it be a small claims court. 2. By a
justice of the Supreme Court, or a judge of the superior court of the county
where the action or proceeding is pending, if pending before a small claims
court, or before a judge or other person out of court.”
“Such an order can only be made on the
motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the nature of the action or
proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1996.) “If the witness be imprisoned in a jail in
the county where the action or proceeding is pending, his production may be
required.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1997.) “In all other cases his examination, when
allowed, must be taken upon deposition.”
(Id.)
Penal Code section 2623 states:
“If
in a civil action or special proceeding a witness be a prisoner, confined in a
state prison within this state, an order for the prisoner’s examination in the
prison by deposition may be made.
1.
By the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending,
unless it be a small claims court.
2.
By a judge of the superior court of the county where the action or proceeding
is pending, if pending before a small claims court or before a judge or other
person out of court.
Such
order can only be made on the motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the
nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness,
and its materiality. The deposition,
when ordered, shall be taken in accordance with Section 2622.”
Motions to Compel Further Responses to
Interrogatories
“On receipt of a response to
interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a
further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following
apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2)
An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3)
An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Notice of a motion to compel further
responses must be given “within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed
in writing.” (Id., subd. (c).)
A motion to compel further responses must
be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement or, in
the discretion of the Court, a “concise outline of the discovery request and
each response in dispute.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) & (b)(2); Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 3.1345.)
“The
court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it
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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
In
Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030,
subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a
monetary sanction ordering that any person “engaging in the misuse of the
discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result
of that conduct.” A “misuse of the discovery process” includes (among other
things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery;
making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to
discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a
court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a
motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,
subds. (d)-(h).)
Discussion
Motion for Deposition of Prisoner
Plaintiffs request an order permitting them to take the
remote or in-person deposition of an incarcerated person, Defendant Akop Daniyelyan, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1995
and 1996 and Penal Code sections 2622 and 2623.
The case arises out of the death of the
Decedent from an accident on September 17, 2020. Defendant Akop Daniyelyan, who is now incarcerated at the
Sierra Conservation Center, is alleged to have been one of the drivers in the
accident, and Plaintiffs contend that his testimony is essential regarding the
events that occurred in connection with the accident. (Sultanyan Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)
Plaintiffs
have shown good cause for the deposition and that the testimony of Defendant Akop Daniyelyan is material to this matter. No opposition has been filed.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED.
Motions
to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories
There has been no Informal Discovery Conference on these motions. As set forth in the Eighth Amended Standing
order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts (at page 7), “PI Hub
Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery
until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).
Accordingly, the hearing on these motions is continued for
approximately 60 days so that an IDC may be scheduled and completed.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
Motion to Permit the Remote Deposition
of Incarcerated Person, Defendant Akop Daniyelyan.
The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff Mudsyan’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses From Defendant Akop Daniyelyan to Form Interrogatories (Set One).
The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff Mudsyan’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses From Defendant Akop Daniyelyan to Special Interrogatories (Set One).
Moving parties are ordered to give notice.