Case Name: Minoo Sadri vs Shahriar Vaziritabar et al

Case No.: 18CV333083

On calendar are Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant Shahriar Vaziritabar (“Defendant”) Damien Carter to serve responses to Form Interrogatories Set One (“FI”), to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to deem requests for admissions admitted, and for monetary sanctions. The motion was timely served, and is unopposed. No responses were served to these discovery requests.

Contrary to what Plaintiff claims in the moving parties, as to discovery motions “[t]he failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.” Rule of Court 3.1348(b).

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

Although the motion is unopposed, the Court finds that certain of the FIs are hopelessly vague in the context of what is essentially a contract dispute, are clearly intended for use in personal injury types of cases, appear intended to harass, and will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the context of this case. As this case involves a series if loan transactions, the Court sees no relevance or reason to ask about whether the Defendant had consumed alcohol before the “incident”, or had any medical, emotional or mental disability, or if Defendant had ever had a workers compensation claim, when no personal injury is involved. The Court finds that it is likely impossible to provide an appropriate definition of “Incident” in a contract case alleging multiple transactions, and multiple causes of action. The Court finds that the use of “Incident” Form Interrogatories are not appropriate in the context of this case. (See California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §8:933.8.) Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the following FIs is DENIED: 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1., 12.2, 12.3, 14.1, and 14.2.

The motion to compel Defendant to serve verified responses to FIs1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6. 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 15.0, and 50.1 through 50.6 is GRANTED.

Defendant shall serve complete, code-compliant, verified responses to the referenced FIs without objections within 20 days of service of the signed order.

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One

The motion to compel verified responses to request for production of documents was timely served, is unopposed and is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve complete, code-compliant, verified responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One, within 20 days of service of the signed order.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Plaintiff’s motion against Defendant for an order to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted, is unopposed and is GRANTED. The order shall be separately stated from the other discovery orders, shall not include any attachments, and shall repeat the text of each request to be admitted.

Sanctions

For each very basic, and unopposed motion to compel where no responses were served to the discovery, Plaintiff seeks an identical amount of sanctions, $2,925, which in the moving papers included time to review oppositions to the motions and to prepare replies. In the amended reply, Plaintiff continues to seek the identical amount for each motion, including claimed time to review opposition and prepare replies, time which was not spent because no oppositions or substantive replies were filed. The Court finds Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain sanctions for time never spent to be inappropriate, and such time is DENIED.

The Court finds that sanctions in the total amount of $700 per motion is an amount reasonably and necessarily incurred for purposes of these three unopposed motions. Accordingly, the Court will require Defendant to pay to Plaintiff’s counsel the total sum of $2,100, as a combined amount for monetary sanctions for preparation of the three motions.

Moving party shall prepare the order.

– oo0oo –