Case Number: BC692630 Hearing Date: November 14, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

arsen gevorgyan,

Plaintiff,

v.

elena janet arevalo raniagua,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC692630

Hearing Date: November 14, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’s motion for order compelling defendant to produce documents

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Elena Janet Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”) to produce photographs of damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision. Defendant does not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, if a deponent fails to produce any document or electronically stored information under the deponent’s control, which is specified in the deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move to compel the deponent to produce the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff took Defendant’s deposition on August 1, 2019. In the deposition notice, Plaintiff requested that Defendant produce any photographs related to the underlying collision. (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #1.) Defendant testified at her deposition that she had photos of the damage to the vehicles as a result of the underlying collision that she did not bring with her to the deposition. (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #2.) The parties agreed that Defendant would email those photos to her counsel, and that Defendant’s counsel would produce the photos to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Defendant produced the photos, but they were in black-and-white and condensed in size. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. #3.) This production is not sufficient because Plaintiff specified that Defendant should produce “original color digital images . . . .” (Declaration of Marina Pilikyan, Exh. #1.) Further, Defendant did not include a verification, which was necessary because the photos were not produced at the deposition (i.e., when Defendant herself could have verified them under oath on the record). The motion is therefore granted.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450(g)(1) and 2023.030(a) because Defendant failed to produce the photographs as required by a deposition subpoena, constituting an abuse of the discovery process. Indeed, this motion was necessitated by Defendant’s gamesmanship. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $810, based upon three hours of attorney time at $250 per hour plus a filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce photographs of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision is granted. Defendant shall produce all photos in her possession, custody or control of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision their original digital format within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant is also to produce a statement, under oath, that the photos are the only photos of the damage to the vehicles involved in the underlying collision in her possession.

Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall pay sanctions in the amount of $810 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 14, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court