Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV17503, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17503 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: February
26, 2024
CASE NAME: Maverick
Bankcard, Inc. v. Watch Rapport, LLC, et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV17503
(1) MOTION
TO COMPEL DEFENDANT WATCH RAPPORT, LLC TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET
ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(SET ONE), AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) ADMITTED;
(2) MOTION
TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALEKSANDRA BULGACH TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET
ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(SET ONE), AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) ADMITTED;
(3) REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Maverick Bankcard, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 20, 2024
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order Compelling Defendant Watch Rapport, LLC to Respond to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for $1,750.00 in Sanctions;
2. An
Order Compelling Defendant Watch Rapport, LLC to Respond to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for $2,595.00 in Sanctions;
3. An
Order Compelling Defendant Watch Rapport, LLC to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for $2,140.00 in
Sanctions;
4. An
Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded on
Defendant Watch Rapport, LLC Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions of
$2,725.00;
5. An
Order Compelling Defendant Aleksandra Bulgach to Respond to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for $1,750.00 in Sanctions;
6. An
Order Compelling Defendant Aleksandra Bulgach to Respond to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for $2,595.00 in Sanctions;
7. An
Order Compelling Defendant Aleksandra Bulgach to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for $2,140.00 in
Sanctions;
8. An
Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded on
Defendant Aleksandra Bulgach Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions of $2,725.00.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Compel Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),
Requests for Production (Set One) as to each Defendant is GRANTED;
2. Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) as to each Defendant is GRANTED;
3. Sanctions
in the amount of $3,405.00 is GRANTED and payable within 30 days of notice of
this Order.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff Maverick Bankcard, Inc.
(Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Watch Rapport, LLC and
Aleksandra Bulgach (Defendants) with two causes of action for: (1) Breach of
Contract; and (2) Fraud and Deceit.
According to the Complaint, the parties entered an Agreement
on November 23, 2022 that Defendants materially breached.
On October 12, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer.
On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to
Compel initial discovery responses and deem RFAs admitted.
Defendants’ oppositions were due on or before February 15,
2024. As of February 20, 2024, there is no opposition filed with the court.
On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition as to all motions to compel.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Motions to Compel
Responses
A party may make a demand for
production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at
any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the
party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for
production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply
with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially
prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending
action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are
relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030,
subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)¿
The party whom the request is
propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a
demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and
confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060,
subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)¿
If a party fails to timely
respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the
request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings
under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one
based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿
The party who propounded the
discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a
monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of
documents or 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., § 2031.300, subd.
(c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)¿
Deem Requests for
Admissions Admitted¿
¿
Where there has been no timely response to requests for
admissions, a “requesting 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).)¿
Sanctions
Misuse of the discovery process
constituting conduct subject to sanctions include “failing to respond or to
submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “failing to confer in person,
by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable
and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d) and (i).) The court may impose a
monetary sanction ordering that one 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) All discovery motions
require a meet and confer declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and
good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the
motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)¿¿
Sanctions are mandatory in
connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions
as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for
production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel 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), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)¿¿
ANALYSIS:
Motions to Compel
Responses
Here, Plaintiff timely served all discovery requests to
Defendants Watch Rapport, LLC and Aleksandra Bulgach electronically on November
2, 2023. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit A (to each motion).) Defendants had 30 days
plus 2 court days to respond, did not do so, and did not request an extension.
(Tomas Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer and, despite
Defendants’ counsel’s statement they would send responses, there were no
responses by the time Plaintiff filed these motions. (Tomas Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.)
Because Defendants have failed to respond to the discovery
requests, each Defendant is compelled to respond to the request for production
of documents and form interrogatories, without objection, including objections
based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300 subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) For
interrogatories, the failure to respond also waives any right to exercise the
option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.
Accordingly,
the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel Form Interrogatories (Set One),
Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents
(Set One) as to each defendant.
Motion to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted
Plaintiff
is entitled to an order deeming its Requests for Admission admitted. As noted
above, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission (Set One) to each Defendant on
November 2, 2023. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit A.) Defendants did
not serve responses. (Tomas Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.)
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted as to each defendant as well as the genuineness
of any documents.
Request for
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests:
·
$1,690.00 for: (1) 2.2 hours preparing the
Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) and additional anticipated
2 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply; and (3) one hour
preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion all at an hourly rate of
$325.00 per hour. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks identical fees with hourly
breakdowns for the second Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories.
·
$2,535.00 for: (1) 4.8 hours preparing the
Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories (Set One); (2) and additional
anticipated 2 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply; and (3) one
hour preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion all at an hourly
rate of $325.00 per hour. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks identical fees
with hourly breakdowns for the second Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories.
·
$2,080.00 for: (1) 3.4 hours preparing the
Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); (2) and
additional anticipated 2 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply;
and (3) one hour preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion all at
an hourly rate of $325.00 per hour. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks
identical fees with hourly breakdowns for the second Motion to Compel Requests
for Production of Documents.
·
$2,665.00 for: (1) 5.2 hours preparing the
Motion Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted; (2) and additional
anticipated 2 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply; and (3) one
hour preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion all at an hourly
rate of $325.00 per hour. (Tomas Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks identical fees
with hourly breakdowns for the second Motion to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted.
·
Filing Fees of $60.00 per motion. (Tomas
Decl. ¶ 9.) There were 8 motions filed in total.
While the court agrees with Plaintiff that sanctions are
warranted, the amount requested is not reasonable. For instance, Plaintiff
requests identical fees for identical hourly expenditures for identical
motions. As such, the court will not award duplicative fees. Similarly, counsel’s
expenditure of 15.6 hours for these simple motions is unreasonable. Additionally,
the request for 2 hours to review and opposition and prepare a reply is not
reasonable since there was no opposition filed. Finally, 1 hour, for a total of
8 hours, to prepare for and attend the hearing on these motions is unreasonable
as they will be heard concurrently and will require minimal preparation.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions and awards $3,405.00 as follows:
1. $480.00
in motion filing fees ($60.00 for 8 motions);
2. $325.00
for 1 hour hearing preparation and appearance fee;
3. $650.00
($325 x/2 hours) for preparing the two Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories
(Set One);
4. $650.00
($325 x/2 hours) for preparing the two Motions to Compel Special
Interrogatories (Set One);
5. $650.00
($325 x/2 hours) for preparing the two Motion to Compel Requests for Production
of Documents (Set One); and
6. $650.00
($325 x/2 hours) for preparing the two Motions to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1.Motion to Compel Form
Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for
Production (Set One) as to each Defendant is GRANTED;
2.Motion to Deem Requests for
Admission (Set One) as to each Defendant is GRANTED;
3.Sanctions in the amount of
$3,405.00 is GRANTED and payable within 30 days of notice of this Order.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 29, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court