This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/03/2020 at 17:51:57 (UTC).

ARDALON FAKHIMI VS ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC.

Case Summary

On 10/01/2018 ARDALON FAKHIMI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2384

  • Filing Date:

    10/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FAKHIMI ARDALON

Defendant

ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RASLA PETER

Defendant Attorney

BURNS NIGEL

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

7/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

4/3/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

2/11/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANT ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

1/29/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANT ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

Reply (name extension) - Reply MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

2/4/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/11/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nicholas Stahl, Esq. in Support of Motion to Compel

11/14/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nicholas Stahl, Esq. in Support of Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/14/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

6/21/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

5/14/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/8/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/8/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Answer - Answer

11/13/2018: Answer - Answer

Summons - on Complaint

10/15/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/1/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

10/1/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/1/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/04/2021
  • Hearing10/04/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Hearing01/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 07/01/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/01/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 01/29/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 04/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 07/01/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 04/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Ardalon Fakhimi (Plaintiff); As to: Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/23/2018; Service Cost: 68.41; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Ardalon Fakhimi (Plaintiff); As to: Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (Defendant); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ardalon Fakhimi (Plaintiff); As to: Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ardalon Fakhimi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12384    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 29, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 4, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff Ardalon Fakhimi (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and general negligence against Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (“Defendant”). The Complaint arises from Defendant’s alleged damage of Plaintiff’s vehicle after removing graphic wrap Defendant itself had previously installed. (Compl., p. 3, ¶ BC-1.) On November 13, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 14, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and, on February 4, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply.

On February 11, 2020, the Court continued the hearing due to Defendant’s failure to include a separate statement with its Motion as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. (2/11/20 Minute Order.) On April 3, 2020, Defendant filed the requested Separate Statement (“SS”).

  1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) If the motion is granted, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2031.310(h).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

  1. Discussion

Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Plaintiff served verified discovery responses by mail on September 10, 2019. (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Because responses were served by mail, the 45-day time limitation is extended by five days under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Defendant’s deadline to bring the instant Motion was November 19, 2019. Thus, this Motion was timely filed on November 14, 2019.

The Motion is also accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. C.) On October 24, 2019, Defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter regarding what he believed were deficiencies in the initial responses. (Id.) Defense counsel stated that as of November 14, 2019, no additional responses had been received. (Id. at ¶ 6.) In his Opposition, however, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he mailed supplemental responses to Defendant on November 9, 2019. (Oppo., Rasla, ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) In its Reply papers, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s supplemental responses are still deficient. (Reply, p. 2.)

Request for Production No. 7:

Request for Production No. 7 asks that Plaintiff provide “any and all citations and/or tickets [Defendant] received between January 2017 to present date.” (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff objected to this request on the ground that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant argues that because Plaintiff alleges Defendant caused damage to the exterior trim and paint finish of the vehicle, the condition of the vehicle is directly at issue, and any existing damage may be explained by tickets or citations. (SS, p. 2.) However, the Court finds that this request is overbroad. Indeed, it is unclear how a speeding citation or parking ticket, for example, would affect the condition of the vehicle’s trim and paint finish.

Thus, Defendant’s request is DENIED.

Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 9:

Request for Production No. 8 requests that Plaintiff provide all documents related to any and all insurance claims made for the vehicle from January 2017 to present. (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Request No. 9 requests that Plaintiff provide all documents relating to all motor vehicle accidents Plaintiff was involved in from January 2017 to present. (Id.) Initially, Defendant objected to the request on the basis that it was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff later supplemented his response for both, indicating that after a diligent search, he could not comply with the request because the document never existed. (Oppo., Rasla Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant argues that this response is incomplete because Plaintiff must also “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category.” (SS, pp. 3-5.) However, this is only a requirement when a responding party states it is unable to comply because the requested document is no longer in their possession, custody or control. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Indeed, if a document never existed, it cannot be said to be in the possession of another party.

Thus, Defendant’s requests are DENIED.

Request for Production No. 10:

Request for Production No. 10 requests that Plaintiff provide all documents concerning his purchase of the vehicle on which Defendant installed the graphic wrap. (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff objected to the request, on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence, that it is propounded solely for the purpose of harassment, and that it is not reasonably particularized from the standpoint of the party on whom the demand is made. (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.)

Defendant argues that these documents are necessary because the condition before and after Defendant removed the graphic wrap is put directly at issue, and thus Defendant is entitled to information concerning the purchase of the vehicle, including the condition of the vehicle at the time it was purchased. (SS pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that the phrase “all documents” encompasses financing documents, which are not relevant to the damage Defendant caused. (Oppo., p. 4.) In addition, Plaintiff argues if there was any damage on the vehicle it would have been noted on Defendant’s intake documents when it initially installed the wrap. (Id. at p. 3.) The Court finds that this request is overbroad. Documents containing financing terms or similar information cannot be said to be related to the physical condition of the vehicle, specifically, the condition of the paint and trim before and after the graphic wrap was removed.

Thus, Defendant’s request is DENIED.

As Defendant’s requests for further responses have been denied, its request for $3,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff is also DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12384    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020, AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve the required separate statement. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 29, 2020

REPLY: Filed on February 4, 2020

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff Ardalon Fakhimi (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and general negligence against Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc. (“Defendant”).

On November 14, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and on February 4, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply.

  1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

  1. Discussion

Defendant seeks to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Plaintiff served verified discovery responses by mail on September 10, 2019. (Mot., Stahl Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Because responses were served by mail, the 45-day time limitation is extended by five days under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Defendant’s deadline to bring the instant Motion was November 19, 2019. Thus, this Motion was timely filed on November 14, 2019.

The Motion is also accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. C.) On October 24, 2019, Defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter regarding what he believed were deficiencies in the initial responses. (Id.) Defense counsel stated that as of November 14, 2019, no additional responses had been received. (Id. at ¶ 6.) In his Opposition, however, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he mailed supplemental responses to Defendant on November 9, 2019. (Oppo., Rasla, ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) In its opposition papers, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses are still deficient. (Reply, p. 2.)

Regardless, Defendant’s Motion is not accompanied by a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. The separate statement “provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue” and “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c).) Although Defendant tried to incorporate the text of the requests and responses into the Motion itself, it did not provide an explanation for compelling a further response separately as to each request. (Mot., p. 5-6.) Rule 3.1345 requires “a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(3).) (Italics added.)

Accordingly, at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant is ordered to file and serve the required separate statement outlining any remaining issues.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Arete Digital Imaging, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020, AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve the required separate statement. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.