Case Number: BC690733 Hearing Date: June 12, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

RON LEIBOVICI, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SARA RABIEE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC690733

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

June 12, 2019

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), without objections, within ten (10) days from notice of this order. Plaintiffs Ron Leibovici and Arian Rezazadeh are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,244.00, within thirty (30) days from notice of this order.

I. Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision which allegedly took place on January 12, 2016 in Woodland Hills, California. Plaintiffs Ron Leibovici and Arian Rezazadeh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint on January 12, 2018 against Defendants Sara Rabiee and Parviz Rabiee (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22350.

Defendants filed the three subject Motions to Compel Further Responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents on May 8, 2019. Because Defendants scheduled one motion for June 11, 2019 and two motions for June 12, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on all three motions to June 12, 2019 to have all three motions heard at the same time.

II. Legal Standard

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 subd. (a).) “On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Id., § 2031.310 subd. (a).) The motion under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Id., §§ 2030.300 subd. (b), 2031.310 subd. (b).) In addition, a separate statement is required. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 3.1345(a)(2).)

III. Discussion

Defendants propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff on October 1, 2018. (Houze-Benson Decls., ¶ 3, Exhs. A.) On November 6, 2018 Plaintiffs, through Counsel, served unverified responses consisting solely of objections. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.) Counsel met and conferred, and Plaintiff’s Counsel indicated additional responses would be served. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8, Exhs. C-E.) No responses were received. (Id., ¶ 9.)

On February 25, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Informal Discovery Conference. Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to appear at the March 26, 2019. The Court ruled that the matter was not resolved and granted the Defendants the opportunity to file the discovery motions. No opposition to the motions have been received.

The motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days from notice of this order. As noted above, the responses Plaintiff served consist solely of objections. The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) In light of the lack of opposition to the motion, Plaintiff has necessarily not met that burden.

IV. Sanctions

Defendants seek sanctions in connection with the three motions. Defense Counsel declares she bills at a rate of $133/hour. Counsel declares that a sum of 6 hours were expended in preparing the motions (2 hours per motion), and 6 hours traveling and attending the hearing (2 hours per motion). Defendants also seeks the sum of $180.00 in fees associated with filing the motions ($60.00 per motion). The Court finds Counsel’s estimated total of 6 hours traveling and attending the hearing to be duplicative and excessive. The Court therefore reduces the total hours to eight, awarding $1,064.00 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards the $180.00 filing fees, for a total sanction award of $1,244.00.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.