Case Number: EC065629 Hearing Date: December 28, 2018 Dept: A

Kevorkian v Public Storage

MOTION THAT THE COURT MUST INTERFERE WITH DEFENDANT’S DELAY/REFUSAL TO PRODUCE ALL AREAS OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS

Calendar: 9

Case No: EC065629

Hearing Date: 12/28/18

Action Filed: 10/18/16

Trial: 3/11/19

MP:

Plaintiff Antranik Kevorkian

RP:

None

ALLEGATIONS:

This case arises from Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants are liable for the losses he suffered when the storage unit he was renting from Defendants was burglarized.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves this Court to interfere because Public Storage’s delay/refusal to produce all areas of discovery request to Plaintiff, including requests for admission (“RFA”), form interrogatories (“FROG”), special interrogatories (“SROG”), and requests for production of documents (“RPD”).

Plaintiff also concurrently filed a motion for monetary sanctions under CCP §128.5 under the same reservation number.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Court’s Interference

Plaintiff filed this motion, arguing that he has attempted to informally resolve his discovery dispute with Defendant Public Storage, Inc. (“Public Storage”), but that Public Storage has failed to provide responses.

However, this is not Plaintiff’s first attempt to seek the discovery at issue. Plaintiff apprises the Court that it denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery on January 5, 2018 for failure to timely file the motion. And again, on May 25, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to discovery based on untimeliness.

Thus, this motion is essentially a camouflaged motion for reconsideration, which is not based on any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any valid legal basis for this request for discovery. While Plaintiff cites many different case law and statutes, the gist of his argument now is regarding the Court’s broad discretion to control the course of discovery and that the Court should consider an appropriate remedy in light of the parties’ attempts to informally resolve the discovery matter. However, the grounds for Plaintiff’s motion do not provide a legal basis to circumvent the code provisions regarding the untimeliness of what is essentially another motion to compel further responses, or the law regarding motions for reconsideration.

Thus, the Court will deny the motion for the Court’s intervention and deny the motion to the extent it is a disguised motion for reconsideration.

Motion for CCP §128.5 Sanctions

Plaintiff also filed a motion for CCP §128.5 sanctions against Public Storage, arguing that it and its attorneys lied to this Court and Plaintiff by failing to produce any discovery responses as promised.

However, Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date with this Court to have this motion heard and has not paid a separate filing fee for this motion. Even if the Court were to consider this motion on its merits, the Court observes there is no apparent indication that the safe harbor provision was properly complied with prior to filing this motion. (CCP §129.5(f); CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray (2018) 2018 WL 6380742.)

Thus, the Court will deny the motion on the basis that Plaintiff has not reserved a hearing date or paid appropriate fees for this motion, nor has the safe harbor provision been complied with by Plaintiff.

RULING:

Deny Plaintiff’s motion that the Court must interfere with Defendant Public Storage’s delay/refusal to produce all areas of discovery responses to his requests.

Deny Plaintiff’s concurrently-filed motion for CCP §128.5 sanctions because Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date or pay filing fees for this separate and distinct motion, plus, even if addressed on the merits, there is no showing that Plaintiff complied with the safe-harbor provision prior to filing the motion.