Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV17703, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17703    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IS GRANTED 

Background 

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff Excel Adjusters Inc. filed this instant action against Tigran Petrosyan, Angie Petrosyan, Hripsime Petrosyan, “Tony Y” and Does 1 to 100. The Complaint alleges: 

1.     Breach of Contract

2.     Liable

3.     Negligence

4.     Extortion 

On June 10, 2022, Defendant Tigran Petrosyan “Defendant” filed this Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 

The motion is unopposed. 

Legal Standard 

 Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)  

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and 2030.290(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for the failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. Monetary sanctions are mandatory against the losing party in a motion to compel responses to interrogatories unless the party’s failure to respond was substantially justified or other circumstances render sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c).) Also, the Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)  

Discussion 

Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents, Set One (RPD) on September 16, 2021. 

Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond on November 18, 2021, but no responses were received. On December 28, 2021, Defendant informed Plaintiff it was required to serve responses without objections. To date, Plaintiff has not replied or served discovery responses. 

Accordingly, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be ordered to serve substantive and verified responses to the RPD, without objection within 30 days. The Motion is GRANTED.  

Defendant also requests $2,337.50 in sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Defense counsel’s hourly rate is $425.00 per hour. (Faizai Decl. ¶ 11.) Defense counsel states he spent 2.5 hours preparing the motion, and additional 3.0 hours reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing. (Id.) 

Given that this motion is unopposed and relatively straightforward, the Court finds the amount requested to be excessive. The Court awards $425.00 in sanctions for 1.0 hours of work. 

Conclusion 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. 

The Court awards Defendant’s $425.00 in Sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Defendant to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.