Case Number: BC695477 Hearing Date: December 12, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Alan keyfman,

Plaintiff,

v.

AK delivery service, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC695477

Hearing Date: December 12, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses from defendant Fernando luna leyva

On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff Alan Keyfman (“Keyfman”) served a motion to compel Defendant Fernando Luna Leyva (“Defendant”) to respond further to special interrogatories (SROG), set one, Nos. 3, 5, 13-14, and 16. The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference on October 2, 2018. The Court’s records reflect that the parties resolved the discovery dispute over these requests at that IDC. Defendant agreed to serve supplemental responses to the SROG at that date. (See Declaration of Diana Justice Spektor, Exhibit K.) Defendant served supplemental responses on October 10, 2018, but he asserts that the SROG call for premature disclosure of expert opinion. (See Declaration of Diana Justice Spektor, Exhibit L.) Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to compel further responses.

In the SROG, Plaintiff asks Defendant to provide detail concerning his contentions as to who is at fault for the accident. Defendant refused to respond substantively because he intends to rely on experts at trial. Defendant’s objection is improper. While Defendant need not designate his expert witnesses at this time, Defendant must indicate whether he “is making a certain contention,” and must provide “the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b).) Defendant must provide “complete and straightforward” answers about his contentions, even if he intends to rely on expert witnesses at trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)

Defendant also argues he has not yet designated expert witnesses, which suggests to the Court that Defendant may not, in fact, have any facts, witnesses, or writings to support his contention as to who is at fault for the accident. If that is the case, the proper approach would have been to indicate that in the SROG and then supplement the responses, if asked by Plaintiff, before discovery closes on August 28, 2018.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,950 against Defendant and defense counsel based on spending a total of six hours preparing the motion and appearing in Court, at a rate of $550 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee and a $20 rescheduling fee. The Court will award sanctions at a rate of $250 per hour, which is more appropriate, for three hours to prepare the motion, and three hours if counsel appears at the hearing, plus the $60 filing fee and a $20 rescheduling fee. Therefore, the Court will order Defendant and/or his counsel to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,580, jointly and severally, within 30 days.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the SROG is granted pursuant to CCP § 2030.300. Defendant and defense counsel are jointly and severally liable for $1,580 in sanctions to Plaintiff, to be paid within 30 days. Defendant is ordered to serve further verified responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice and file such with the Court.

DATED: December 12, 2018 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court