Case Number: EC060622    Hearing Date: July 25, 2014    Dept: A

Stein v Darby Group

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ORDERS (4)

Calendar: 2
Case No: EC060622
Date: 7/25/14

MP: Plaintiff, Belle Stein
RP: Defendants, Camerino Islas, Velasquez Pasadena Trust, Camellia Trust, Title Trust Services, Darby Group, and LA Tucson.

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order compelling Defendants, Camerino Islas and Velasquez Pasadena Trust, to serve responses to requests for production.
2. Order compelling Defendants, Camellia Trust, Title Trust Services, Darby Group, and LA Tucson, to serve responses to requests for production.
3. Order compelling Defendants, Title Trust Services, Camellia Trust, and Velasquez Pasadena Trust, to serve responses to form interrogatories.
4. Order compelling Defendant, Camerino Islas, to serve further responses to requests for production.

CHRONOLOGY:
Discovery Served: March 4, 2014, March 6, 2014, April 23, 2014, and
April 24, 2014
Responses Served: June 2, 2014

Further Responses Served: June 23, 2014

Motions Filed: June 30, 2014.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants improperly foreclosed on and sold the Plaintiff’s property. Trial is set for January 12, 2015.

At this hearing, the Plaintiff seeks discovery orders regarding the form interrogatories and requests for production that she served on the Defendants. The motions are moot because the Defendants served responses and supplemental responses to the discovery on June 23, 2014.

The Plaintiff also requested that the Court impose monetary sanctions on the Defendants for the fees and costs that were incurred in filing the motions regarding the form interrogatories and requests for production.
There are no grounds to impose any monetary sanctions because the Plaintiff unnecessarily incurred the attorney’s fees and costs for these motions. The Defendants provide copies of the responses that they served by mail and facsimile on June 23, 2014.
Despite receiving these responses, the Plaintiff then filed the pending motions seven days later, on June 30, 2014. Since the Defendants served the responses before the Plaintiff filed the pending motions, the Plaintiff’s motions were unnecessary.
In the moving papers, the Plaintiff’s attorney, Natalya Byzova, acknowledges in paragraph 28 that she received the facsimile but she claims that the pages for the responses were illegible. Ms. Byzova offers no facts to explain not advising the Defendants that there had been an error. Instead, Ms. Byzova offers the unsupported statement that she believed that the facsimile was intentionally sent in this manner to mislead the Plaintiff and to stall the filing of discovery motions.
Instead, this entire hearing was caused by Ms. Byzova failure to communicate with the Defendants’ attorney to advise him that the responses had not been legible. There are no grounds to find that the Defendants engaged in the misuse of discovery.
Therefore, the Court will deny the Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

RULING:
DENY Plaintiff’s four motions in their entirety.