Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV22417, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22417    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff Simon Cohen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The Complaint was filed against several defendants, including Defendant Silvicom, Inc. (“Defendant”).

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), and sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.  Specifically, Defendant moves to Compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Interrogatories 4.1, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, and 8.4.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he 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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

III.        DISCUSSION

A review of the moving, opposing, and reply papers reveals that the Interrogatories at issues has now been narrowed to Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 8.4.  (See Moghadam Decl., ¶¶ 8, Exh. 3.)  Plaintiff contends that the Motion is moot, as he provided further responses based on the feedback received by the Court at the IDC.  (See id. at ¶ 7.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 8.4 remain deficient.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory No. 4.1 is deficient because Plaintiff fails to provide his automobile insurance information.  Defendant is correct, to the extent that Plaintiff’s had automobile insurance on the auto involved in this matter at the time of the accident, Defendant is entitled to that information.

In addition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 8.4 is deficient because it fails to state how Plaintiff’s monthly income was calculated.  The Court agrees.  Plaintiff’s response merely states that his monthly income is “Appx. $2,700 biweekly” but he fails to state how that amount was calculated, and failed to provide a further response.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 8.4.

In light of the ruling above, the Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, Rafi Moghadam, of the Law Offices of Rafi Moghadam are appropriate.  The Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the amount of $450, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $195 per hour plus the $60 filing fee.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.  Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Rafi Moghadam, of the Law Offices of Rafi Moghadam, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $450 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 17 day of January 2023