STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ALEXANDER YUSPRAIKH, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03107    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v. Yuspraikh, et al.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(CCP §§ 2033.080, 2030.090(b).)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Alexander Yuspraikh’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. SANCTIONS OF $400.00 ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT ALEXANDER YUSPRAIKH AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. filed an action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Alexander Yuspraikh (“Defendant Yuspraikh”) and Marcelo Aragon (collectively, “Defendants”).

On September 18, 2019, Defendant Yuspraikh filed the instant Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Written Discovery (the “Motion”). On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and Defendant Yuspraikh replied on January 7, 2020. The Motion initially came for hearing on January 14, 2020, at which time the Court found insufficient evidence for the protective order and ordered Defendant Yuspraikh to file supplemental papers. On February 18, 2020, Defendant Yuspraikh file a supplemental brief and declaration in support of the Motion.

Legal Standard

A party who has been served with interrogatories or requests for admission may “promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (a).) The motion for a protective order must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration pursuant to Section 2016.040. (Id.) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

A party seeking a protective order must show good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of the evidence. (Stadish v. Sup. Ct. (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) Sanctions are mandatory against the losing party on a motion for protective order unless it finds that the party made or opposed the motion with “substantial justification” or other circumstances make the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (h).)

Discussion

Plaintiff served Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions on Defendant Yuspraikh on June 19, 2019. (Mot., Salata Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants argue that requiring Defendant Yuspraikh to provide verified responses to the discovery would be oppressive because he is “mentally unfit.” (Mot., p. 3.) Defendant’s seek a protective order and stay for discovery propounded to Defendant Yuspraikh due to his mental issues and pending conservatorship proceedings, which Defendant stated would take approximately 90 days. (Id.)

In support of the initial Motion, Defendant Yuspraikh submitted the declaration of his daughter, Veronica Aragon (“Aragon”), who stated that he is “currently under the care of a mental health professional for psychiatric issues affecting his mental capacity and competency.” (Mot., Aragon Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court, however, agreed with Plaintiff that the initial Motion failed to show good cause for the protective order because the discovery is not oppressive and because Defendant Yuspraikh only provided “vague and conclusory references to competence and to a conservator being established.” (Oppo., p. 4.) Also, the 90-day estimated period for appointment of a conservator had passed by the time the Motion came for hearing on January 14, 2020.

The Court specifically ordered Defendant Yuspraikh to serve and file documentation regarding the conservator proceedings, including whether (and if applicable, when) a conservator has been appointed. The Court noted that Defendant Yuspraikh failed to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort on December 16, 2019 and that any conservator appointed would be obligated to respond to the written discovery propounded by Plaintiff. (Citing Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1501.)

Defendant Yuspraikh’s supplemental brief reiterates his numerous medical and mental health challenges, including new ones that have arisen since the last hearing. (Supp. Motion, p. 3:5-27.) The supplemental brief from Aragon reiterates these facts. (Supp. Aragon Decl., ¶¶2-3.) It appears that although Aragon looked into the appointment of a conservator, the Public Guardian of Los Angeles County recommended against it at this time. (Id. at ¶¶4-6.)

The Court finds that while Defendant Yuspraikh has provided additional evidence regarding his lack of mental fitness to respond to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff, there is no authority to find discovery propounded on a mentally incompetent party is oppressive such that a protective order should be imposed. Rather, the appropriate means to address Defendant Yuspraikh’s situation is to move for appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372, et seq.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Alexander Yuspraikh’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, subdivision (c), in the amount of $400.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour. (Opp., Schoeck Decl., ¶¶4-10.) Sanctions are awarded jointly and severally against Defendant Alexander Yuspraikh and his counsel of record, and are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03107    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(CCP §§ 2033.080, 2030.090(b).)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Alexander Yuspraikh and Marcelo Aragon’s Motion for Protective Order is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94.

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 24, 2019  [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 9, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. filed an action for subrogation against Defendants Alexander Yuspraikh (“Defendant Yuspraikh”) and Marcelo Aragon (collectively, “Defendants”).

On September 18, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Written Discovery (the “Motion”). On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

A party who has been served with interrogatories or requests for admission may “promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (a).) The motion for a protective order must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration pursuant to Section 2016.040. (Id.) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

A party seeking a protective order must show good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of the evidence. (Stadish v. Sup. Ct. (Southern Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.) Sanctions are mandatory against the losing party on a motion for protective order unless it finds that the party made or opposed the motion with “substantial justification” or other circumstances make the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (h).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff served Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions on Defendant Yuspraikh on June 19, 2019. (Mot., Salata Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants argue that requiring Defendant Yuspraikh to provide verified responses to the discovery would be oppressive because he is “mentally unfit.” (Mot., p. 3.) Defendant’s seek a protective order and stay for discovery propounded to Defendant Yuspraikh due to his mental issues and pending conservatorship proceedings, which Defendant stated would take approximately 90 days. (Id.) Defendants submit the declaration of Defendant Yuspraikh’s daughter, Veronica Aragon, stating that he is “currently under the care of a mental health professional for psychiatric issues affecting his mental capacity and competency.” (Mot., Aragon Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to show good cause for the protective order because the discovery is not oppressive and because they only provide “vague and conclusory references to competence and to a conservator being established.” (Oppo., p. 4.) The Court agrees. Defendants’ only evidence of Defendant Yuspraikh purported treatment or conservatorship proceedings is a declaration from his daughter. (Mot., Aragon Decl.)

Plaintiff also argues that the requested discovery is relevant to the issues in this case and that Defendants’ Motion should be moot because is now beyond the 90-day period indicated by Defendant. It is unclear if a conservator has already been appointed as Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s December 16, 2019 meet and confer phone call and letter. (Oppo., Schoeck Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. D.) Indeed, if a conservator has already been appointed, the conservator must provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. (See Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1501.) Defendants are ordered to serve and file documentation regarding the conservator proceedings, including whether (and if applicable, when) a conservator has been appointed. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Motion being denied and sanctions against Defendants imposed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Alexander Yuspraikh and Marcelo Aragon’s Motion for Protective Order is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94.

Defendants are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers no later than 16 court days before the next hearing. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Motion being denied and sanctions against Defendants imposed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.