Case Number: BC488433 Hearing Date: May 01, 2014 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

ARMEN FERKASSIAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

RENAISSANCE HOLLLYWOOD HOTEL, et al.,

Defendants.
Case No.: BC 488433

Hearing Date: May 1, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
1. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT CIM/H&H HOTEL, LP
2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses as against Defendant CIM/H&H Hotel on January 6, 2014, setting it for hearing February 4, 2014, and filed a motion to compel responses as against Defendant Marriott on January 13, 2014, also setting it for February 4, 2014. While captioned as motions to compel responses, both motions are in fact motions to compel further responses and were therefore subject to the PI Hub requirement of an Independent Discovery Conference (IDC) prior to hearing. Having previously filed a motion to compel further responses without compliance with the IDC process in the fall of 2013, which necessitated continuance of the hearing until after the parties participated in an IDC, Plaintiff’s counsel was well aware of this procedural requirement. Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed these two motions in violation of the General Order that governs the PI Hub. Defendants were put to the expense of opposing these motions because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the IDC requirement. Preparation of moving and opposing papers on motions to compel further responses is time consuming because of the separate statement requirement, and one purpose of the IDC procedure is to save the parties this expenditure of time by getting to the heart of the matter in face-to-face conversations. Hearing on the motions was continued until the parties had an opportunity to participate in an IDC.

On February 24, 2014, another IDC was held, resulting in a written stipulation and order. The middle paragraph on page 3 of the stipulation and order provides that Plaintiff “reserves his right to proceed with his sanction portions of [his] two pending motions to compel, and he agrees to secure a new and different hearing date for the relief being requested.” In the stipulation and order, Defendants “also reserve the right to pursue their previous request for cross-sanctions, should [Plaintiff] elect to proceed with the hearing on the at-issue motions.” The implication of this stipulation is that Defendants would be willing to waive their request for cross-sanctions if Plaintiff were willing to waive his request for sanctions. By reserving the current hearing date, Plaintiff has indicated that he is pursuing his sanction request against Defendants, and therefore Defendants have responded that they are pursuing their corresponding request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s two motions fail to comply with the notice requirements of CCP §2023.040 which mandates that the notice of motion that contains a request for a sanction must specify the type of sanction sought. Here, Plaintiff’s motions do not specify the type of sanction sought and therefore, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Defendants’ cross-request for monetary sanctions against the Beck Law Firm (the “Beck Firm”) is granted. Defendants seek sanctions against the Beck Firm alone, and not against Plaintiff or co-counsel for Plaintiff. Defendants were needlessly put to the expense of opposing these motions due to the Beck Firm’s failure to comply with the IDC requirement. Despite that, Defendants indicated a willingness to forego their requests for monetary sanctions if Plaintiff would do the same. Because Plaintiff has insisted upon a hearing on his sanction request, Defendants have expended additional hours filing the supplemental opposition and appearing at the hearing. For such time and expenses, Defendants request $4,080.00. The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to 14 hours for time spent opposing the motions and appearing at the hearing; motions to compel further responses require preparation of a separate statement, which is time consuming. The Court declines to award sanctions for any time spent preparing for or attending the IDC, since that would have been required regardless. Therefore, the Beck Firm is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,240 to Defendants, by and through counsel.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay monetary sanctions within twenty days of notice of this order.