On 10/24/2016 TAKOUHI KAIMATLIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 99 CENTS ONLY STORES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
99 CENTS ONLY STORES
MGDESYAN GEORGE G. ESQ.
WAINFELD GABRIEL H. ESQ.
CHUNG CHRISTIAN MIN GUL
6/11/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
6/18/2018: NOTICE OF COTINUANCE OF TRIAL
8/14/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGABLES ATTENDANCE;AND ETC.
9/7/2018: DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOSHUA B. ADELPOUR
9/17/2018: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, ETC
9/28/2018: Minute Order
10/2/2018: NOTICE OF COURTS ORDER RE:PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS PMKS ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
11/27/2018: Minute Order
1/24/2019: Ex Parte Application
1/30/2019: Notice of Ruling
10/24/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PERSONAL INJURIES-PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC
10/11/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT
10/30/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; ETC.
12/12/2017: Minute Order
12/14/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT )
at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by 99 Cents Only Stores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by 99 Cents Only Stores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling Re: Ex Parte Application to Continue the Deadline for the Court Ordered Deposition of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable; Filed by 99 Cents Only Stores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Ex-Parte application to continue the deadline for the court o...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (To continue the deadline for the court ordered deposition of defendant's person most knowledgeable); Filed by 99 Cents Only Stores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by 99 Cents Only Stores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Takouhi Kaimatlian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Takouhi Kaimatlian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PERSONAL INJURIES-PREMISES LIABILITY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Takouhi Kaimatlian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC638047 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 28
Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production (All Set Two)
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff Takouhi Kaimatlian (“Plaintiff”) filed a compliant against Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as 99 Cents Only Stores) (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on October 27, 2014.
On January 21, 2020, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Supplemental Interrogatories, Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production (All Set Two) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.
Trial is set for April 2, 2020.
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Supplemental Interrogatories, Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production (All Set Two) due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses.
Defendant also asks the Court to impose $1,140 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)
Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
On August 16, 2019, Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories, Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Request for Production (All Set Two) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail. (All Three Declarations of Gabriel H. Wainfeld (“Wainfeld Decl.”), ¶ 1, Exh. A.) Defendant granted two extensions for Plaintiff to provide the outstanding responses, providing an ultimate deadline of on December 12, 2019. (Wainfeld Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. B-C.) Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses. (Wainfeld Decl., ¶ 4, RFP Motion, p. 5:7-5:8.)
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the requested supplemental responses are attached to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declarations. (Both Declarations of Araksya Boyadzhyan (“Boyadzhyan Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 8, Exh. A.)
Plaintiff apparently served late responses at the time of Plaintiff’s late opposition (due 2/3/20, filed 2/5/20). In the meantime, the Defendant had to move to compel responses. Defendant should be reimbursed for the cost of that exercise. Defendant’s request for $1,140 in sanctions for these nearly duplicative and straight-forward motions is unreasonable, however. Rather, the Court finds $750 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, for filing the moving and reply papers.
The motions are GRANTED as to the issue of sanctions, only.Plaintiff and his counsel of record are ordered to pay $750, jointly and severally, to Defendant within 30 days of this ruling.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases