Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV02647, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02647    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 14, 2022, Defendant Kasra Mizban filed this motion for an order compelling Plaintiff Gabriel R. Sanchez to provide responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Three).  On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to this motion, which included a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, Peter Hakim, stating that responses were served on August 16, 2022. 

As responses were served, Defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED as moot. 

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  A court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion filed.  (CRC rule 3.1348.)  Here, Plaintiff argues he should not be sanctioned, but that Defendant should be sanctioned for failing to properly serve the underlying discovery and then bringing this motion.  Plaintiff’s counsel states that his firm uses an email address for electronic service that was not reflected in Defendant’s proof of service.  (Response, Hakim Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) 

Defendant did not file a reply brief to address the issue of service and the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that sanctions would be unjust if, in fact, the discovery was not actually served on the right email address.  Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is not detailed or cogent enough to substantiate Plaintiff’s request for $700 in sanctions.  Mr. Hakim states that “The amount of expense in connection with this motion consists of a total of 2 hours of work expended thus far in preparing this opposition.  The average hourly rate of all attorneys who expended time and who will expend time on this motion is $700 per hour.  Claimant will also incur arbitration fees.”  (Response, Hakim Decl., ¶ 8.)  First, the calculation of the fees incurred does not add up.  Second, Counsel does not explain which attorneys worked on the motion and what their individual hourly rates are. 

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.