Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Christopher Mankarian of the Mankarian Law Group who is being ordered by the court.

Case Number: BC595497 Hearing Date: March 28, 2018 Dept: 92

DHIA ALHASHIM,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SALIYA DESILVA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC595497

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 28, 2018

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Dhia Alhashim filed this action against Defendants, Saliya Desilva, Neranjika Desilva, Adryel Levis, Angeles Levis, and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC for damages arising out of a dog bite. Nationstar is sued as the owner of the premises where the subject dog resided.

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

a. History of Discovery Dispute

Nationstar propounded RFAs, form interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiff on 6/09/17. The parties agreed to multiple extensions of time to respond, and Plaintiff ultimately served responses on 8/28/17. Defendant believed the responses were insufficient, and the parties met and conferred; the meet and confer attempts resulted in amended and supplemental responses, but the parties were never able to resolve all outstanding issues concerning the sufficiency of the responses.

On 1/29/18, the Court was scheduled to hold an informal discovery conference concerning the discovery responses that remained at issue. Defendant appeared; Plaintiff did not. The Court therefore took the conference off calendar. This motion follows.

b. Merits

Defendant, in its separate statement, adequately shows that the responses at issue are insufficient. For example, in connection with form interrogatory 17.1, Plaintiff merely states, “Responding party still does not have such information being asked of him. Responding party will supplement this when he becomes privy of such information.” Plaintiff is obligated to provide a full and complete response to each interrogatory at issue; the foregoing does not constitute a full and complete response.

Similarly, with respect to the RPDs at issue, Plaintiff merely stated, “Responding party does not have responsive documents.” CCP §2031.230 requires specific information when a party claims not to have responsive documents. Plaintiff’s responses do not provide the required information, and are therefore insufficient.

The Court notes that Defendant, in the caption of its motion, indicates it also seeks “production of documents” as well as further responses to RPDs. Defendant does not brief this request. Any request for an order compelling production of documents will be ripe if and only if Plaintiff serves responses promising to produce documents and then fails to do so. CCP §2031.320. To the extent Defendant seeks to compel production of documents, the request is denied without prejudice at this time.

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $3420 which included two hours for a reply which was not necessary due to lack of opposition. Sanctions are proper even though no opposition is filed. CRC Rule 3.1348. The Court awards 11 hours of time at the requested rate of $240/hour plus $60 in filing fees, for a total award of $2700. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, and must be paid within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve further responses without objection, in full compliance with this order, within ten days.