This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/24/2020 at 21:21:31 (UTC).

AMIR SOLEIMANIAN VS IN HIS PRESENCE, LLC, ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/01/2017 AMIR SOLEIMANIAN filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against IN HIS PRESENCE, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are VIRGINIA KEENY, PAUL A. BACIGALUPO, FRANK J. JOHNSON and SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6543

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

VIRGINIA KEENY

PAUL A. BACIGALUPO

FRANK J. JOHNSON

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

AMIR SOLIEMANIAN DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF

SOLOMON SID

Defendants and Not Classified By Court

KHOSRAVISZADEH MARRIYAN

KHOSVAVIZADEH MARIYAN

KHOSRAVIZAD Z

KHOSVAVIZIZAH MARIYON

VIZAD ZAHRA M KHOSRA

KHOSRAVIZADEH ZAHRA M.

KHOSRAVIZADE Z MARIYAN

KHOSRAVIZADEH MARIAN

IN HIS PRESENCE LLC

KHOSRAVIZADEH MARIYAN Z

KHOFRAVIZADEH MARIYAN

6843 ZELZAH LLC

KHOSIABIZABAH MARIA

KHOSRAVIZAD Z M

MARIYAN CONSULTING INC.

JAHOSRAVIZADEH MARJY AN

KHSIAVIZADEH MARIYA

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROSSMAN ADAM STEVEN

BRANDON DAVID DREW

Defendant Attorneys

RESNIK MATTHEW DAVID

TORABI KASRA

TORABI KASRA SEYED

KRITZER DAVID

TORABI KASRA S.

THIEL ADAM C

MAHER II JOSEPH C

Other Attorneys

AHDOOT JASON DAVID

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

8/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Declaration - DECLARATION BOBBY SOLEIMANS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRIVATE BANK RECORDS AND DEEM INADMISSIBLE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED FINANCIAL RECORDS BY

10/31/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION BOBBY SOLEIMANS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRIVATE BANK RECORDS AND DEEM INADMISSIBLE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED FINANCIAL RECORDS BY

Substitution of Attorney

11/12/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

12/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT MARIYAN KHOSRAVIZADEH'S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

4/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT MARIYAN KHOSRAVIZADEH'S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

12/13/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

12/22/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-01-18 00:00:00

1/18/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-01-18 00:00:00

Answer

1/24/2019: Answer

Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Renee S. Diaz in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike In His Presence, LLC's Answer and Entry of Default Against In His Presence

1/16/2019: Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Renee S. Diaz in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike In His Presence, LLC's Answer and Entry of Default Against In His Presence

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ExParte Application & Order

2/8/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ExParte Application & Order

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation & Order

3/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation & Order

Case Management Statement

4/20/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof of Service

5/10/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof of Service

Opposition - Opposition To Motions For Contempt Order And alt. Order To Compel

11/30/2018: Opposition - Opposition To Motions For Contempt Order And alt. Order To Compel

Reply - Reply To Defendants IHP, Mariyan Consulting, Inc. & 6843 Zelzah LLC's Omnibus Opposition To Motion for Contempt Order

12/6/2018: Reply - Reply To Defendants IHP, Mariyan Consulting, Inc. & 6843 Zelzah LLC's Omnibus Opposition To Motion for Contempt Order

Notice - Notice Opposition To Application for right to Attach Order

2/2/2018: Notice - Notice Opposition To Application for right to Attach Order

Motion for Order - Motion for Order Permitting Additional Time For Deposition Of Plaintiff Amir Soleimanian

11/16/2018: Motion for Order - Motion for Order Permitting Additional Time For Deposition Of Plaintiff Amir Soleimanian

274 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2021
  • Hearing03/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department W at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Amir Soleimanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Amir Soleimanian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketWrit - Return

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
379 More Docket Entries
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketApplication for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • DocketNotice of Application; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Amir Soliemanian Derivatively on behalf (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Amir Soleimanian, derivatively on behalf of 6843 Zelzah, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company (Plaintiff); Soleiman Partners, A General Partnership (Plaintiff); Bobby Soleiman (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC106543    Hearing Date: September 02, 2020    Dept: W

soleimanian v. in his presence, llc, et al.

plaintiff’s motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for admissions, and request for production of documents

Date of Hearing: September 2, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: LC106543

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Amir Soleimanian, Bobby Soleiman, Sid Solomon, Amir Soleimanian derivatively for 6843 Zelzah, LLC, Soleiman Partners, and KAM LP

Responding Party: Defendants In His Presence LLC, Mariyan Khosravizadeh,

Mariyan Consulting, Inc., 23830 Hatteras LLC, 16717 Vanowen LLC, and 6843 Zelzah LLC

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs met Mariyan Khosravizadeh (“Mary”) in 2015. Plaintiffs allege Mary presented herself as a licensed real estate agent and owner of a property management/consulting company and that based on Mary’s representation, Plaintiffs made a series of loans to Mary and her related companies for real estate investments, which Mary has not paid back. Plaintiffs further allege they subsequently discovered that Mary has had her real estate license suspended and has been convicted of possession, arson, and drug possession. Plaintiffs also allege Mary has never provided an accounting of the income from a property Plaintiffs have invested in and that Mary required Plaintiffs’ collateral to be released without paying the loan, leaving the Plaintiffs’ notes unsecured.

The instant matter was filed on December 1, 2017. A first amended complaint was filed on January 26, 2018. After demurrer, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging: 1) Breach of Promissory Note; 2) Breach of Promissory Note; 3) Breach of Promissory Note; 4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 5) Dissolution; 6) Accounting (Zelzah); 7) Fraud; 8) Negligent Representation; 9) Breach of Settlement Agreement; 10) Accounting (Joshua); 12) Breach of Promissory Note; 12) Fraudulent Omission; 13) Fraudulent Omission; and 14) Money Lent.

On August 27, 2018, the court granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend adding two additional causes of action for breach of promissory note by Plaintiffs KAM and Soleiman Partners.

Plaintiffs now move the court for an order compelling Defendants 6843 ZELZAH, LLC, Mariyan Consulting, Inc., and Mariyan Khosravizadeh to provide discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs also request this court issue an order deeming the Request for Admissions admitted.

[Tentative] Ruling

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC and Mariyan Consulting, Inc. response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Defendant Mariyan Khosravizadeh response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Deeming Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC and Mariyan Consulting, Inc. response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) and Defendant Mariyan Khosravizadeh response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Admitted (Set Two) is MOOT.

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC, Mariyan Consulting, Inc., and Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production Documents (Set One) is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC, Mariyan Consulting, Inc., and Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiffs move the court to compel Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC and Mariyan Consulting, Inc.’s response to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (Set One); Defendant Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two); Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC, Mariyan Consulting, Inc., and Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s response Plaintiff’s Request for Production Documents (Set One); and Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC, Mariyan Consulting, Inc., and Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiffs also move the court issue an order deeming Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions (Set One) against Defendants 6843 Zelzah LLC and Mariyan Consulting, Inc. and Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions (Set Two) against Defendant Mariyan Khosravizadeh admitted.

The court notes that Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order is missing Set Two to the RFAs and Form Interrogatories.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

Moreover, where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP §2033.280(b).)

On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Admissions (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Form Interrogatories (Set One) upon Defendants 6843 ZELZAH, LLC and Mariyan Consulting, Inc.. Plaintiffs also propounded Requests for Admissions (Set Two), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Form Interrogatories (Set Two) on Mariyan Khosravizadeh (collectively "Defendants"). (Diaz Decl. ¶2, Exhs. A-C.) Defendants responses to the sets were due on or before December 2, 2019. (Diaz Decl. ¶3.) Defendants never served responses to these sets of Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatories. (Diaz Decl. ¶4.) After Defendants substituted counsel, Plaintiffs reached out to Defendants’ new counsel regarding the past due discovery. (Diaz Decl. ¶5.) The parties discussed and Plaintiffs informed Defendants that the responses were due, without objection, on or before January 17, 2020. (Diaz Decl. ¶5.) However, in an effort to resolve this case, and the related case, the parties entered an agreement to stay both actions, for the period of March 2020 to July 13, 2020, which was adopted by the court. (Diaz Decl. ¶6.) After the stay lifted, Plaintiffs requested the over due discovery. (Diaz Decl. ¶7.) Plaintiffs declined the request for an extension of time to respond to discovery and have filed the instant discovery motions. (Diaz Decl. ¶7.)

In opposition, Defendants argue this motion should have never been filed. Defendants first argue Plaintiffs did not engage in a good faith meet and confer before filing this motion and there was a standstill in the outstanding discovery before the stay was entered. Defendants contend a meet and confer communication was required to put defendants on notice that the discovery production was still due. Defendants also argue these motions were filed by the Plaintiffs in an attempt to force the Defendants to accept extremely unfavorable settlement terms.

Defendants note they served verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions on Plaintiffs the same day as of the filing of the instant opposition. However, Plaintiffs claim the responses are not code compliant because Defendants served objections. If Defendants can provide evidence showing Defendants served code compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Request for Admissions is denied as MOOT. (See CCP §2033.280(c).) If the responses are not code complaint, Plaintiffs are free to file a motion to compel further responses.

As for the other discovery requests, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. There is no meet and confer requirements to filing a motion to compel initial responses. Although the parties entered a stay from March 2020 to July 13, 2020, it appears the stay did not prohibit Defendants from completing their past due discovery responses. Moreover, the motion to compel does not appear to be an attempt to create settlement leverage as the responses have been due since December 2019.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,110.00 on each motion to compel against on the grounds these attorney's fees and costs have been necessitated solely by Defendants' failure to cooperate in the discovery process. As such, Plaintiffs seek a total of $4,4440 in sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel declares the sanctions request is based on 2.5 hours to prepare each motion, 1 hour in anticipation of opposition and preparing a reply, and $60 to file the motion. (Diaz Decl. ¶10.) Counsel states this request reflects her billing rate of $350.00 an hour. (Diaz Decl. ¶10.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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. (CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) For a motion to deem request for admissions admitted, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction … on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280(c).)

Defendants argue sanctions should not be imposed because the motion was filed prematurely and without a proper meet and confer. However, as discussed above, a meet and confer is not required in order to file a motion to compel initial responses. Nontheless, the court agrees that plaintiffs gave little advance warning before filing the motion to compel, depriving defendants of an opportunity to fulfill their obligation to comply with discovery which had been on hold, by mutual agreement, for many months. The court finds persuasive defendants’ position that they were taken by surprise and that an imposition of sanctions in the form of attorney fees would be unjustified. The court, however, does require defendants to reimburse plaintiffs the cost of their filing fees, or $240, as a sanction, payable within 30 days.

Case Number: LC106543    Hearing Date: August 17, 2020    Dept: W

soleimanian v. in his presence, llc, et al.

motion to compel defendant mariyan khosravizadeh’s attendance at deposition and production of documents

Date of Hearing: August 17, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: LC106543

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Amir Soleimanian, Bobby Soleiman, Sid Solomon, Amir Soleimanian derivatively for 6843 Zelzah, LLC, Soleiman Partners, and KAM LP

Responding Party: Defendants In His Presence LLC, Mariyan Khosravizadeh,

Mariyan Consulting, Inc., 23830 Hatteras LLC, 16717 Vanowen LLC, and 6843 Zelzah LLC

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs met Mariyan Khosravizadeh (“Mary”) in 2015. Plaintiffs allege Mary presented herself as a licensed real estate agent and owner of a property management/consulting company and that based on Mary’s representation, Plaintiffs made a series of loans to Mary and her related companies for real estate investments, which Mary has not paid back. Plaintiffs further allege they subsequently discovered that Mary has had her real estate license suspended and has been convicted of possession, arson, and drug possession. Plaintiffs also allege Mary has never provided an accounting of the income from a property Plaintiffs have invested in and that Mary required Plaintiffs’ collateral to be released without paying the loan, leaving the Plaintiffs’ notes unsecured.

The instant matter was filed on December 1, 2017. A first amended complaint was filed on January 26, 2018. After demurrer, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging: 1) Breach of Promissory Note; 2) Breach of Promissory Note; 3) Breach of Promissory Note; 4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 5) Dissolution; 6) Accounting (Zelzah); 7) Fraud; 8) Negligent Representation; 9) Breach of Settlement Agreement; 10) Accounting (Joshua); 12) Breach of Promissory Note; 12) Fraudulent Omission; 13) Fraudulent Omission; and 14) Money Lent.

On August 27, 2018, the court granted Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend adding two additional causes of action for breach of promissory note by Plaintiffs KAM and Soleiman Partners.

Plaintiffs now move the court for an order compelling Mary to appear and testify at a further session of her deposition, to produce documents, without objection, responsive to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents two weeks before the date of Mary's deposition, and to allow the deposition to exceed seven hours. Plaintiffs also move for sanctions.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Defendant Mariyan Khosravizadeh’s Attendance At Deposition And Production Of Documents is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Defendant Mary to appear and testify at a further session of her deposition and to produce documents, without objection, responsive to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-88 two weeks before the date of Mary's deposition. Plaintiffs also move to allow the deposition to exceed seven (7) hours.

Meet and Confer

Defendants oppose the instant motion on the grounds it should never have been filed. Defendants argue when the motion was filed, there was no good faith meet and confer.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(b)(2) states provides a Motion to Compel Deposition and Production for Inspection of Documents shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040…” Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 states, “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.”

On June 10, 2019, the parties met and conferred as to deposition dates. (Diaz Decl. ¶2, Exh. A; June 10, 2019 Minute Order.) Parties agreed to having Defendant Mary’s deposition take place on July 10, 2019. (Diaz Decl. ¶2, Exh. A; June 10, 2019 Minute Order.) On July 10, 2019, Defendant arrived for her deposition but did not have any documents with her. (Diaz Decl. ¶4.) When counsel asked about the documents, Defendant's then attorney, Kasra Torabi, represented that he had the documents but could not download them and would send them later to the Plaintiffs. (Diaz Decl. ¶4, Exh. C.) A week later, Plaintiffs followed up with Mr. Torabi regarding the documents but received no response. (Diaz Decl. ¶5, Exh. D.) In November of 2019, current counsel substituted in as attorney for Defendants. (Substitution of Attorney filed November 12, 2019.) On December 16, 2019, the parties engaged in another IDC and it was ordered Defendants were to produce Mary for deposition and the responsive documents no later than December 30, 2019. (Diaz Decl. ¶7, December 16, 2019 Minute Order.) Plaintiffs admit they received some documents on December 30, 2019, but Mary failed to provide a vast majority of pertinent documents required under the deposition notice. (Diaz Decl. ¶8.) Counsel met and conferred regarding this issue. (Diaz Decl. ¶8.) At a January 29, 2020 status conference, counsel for Defendant agreed to provide all outstanding discovery responses to Plaintiffs attorney no later than February 11, 2020. (Diaz Decl. ¶9; January 29, 2020 Minute Order.) The court ordered if responses are not provided by that time, Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel by February 28, 2020. (Diaz Decl. ¶9; January 29, 2020 Minute Order.) Prior to the February 28, 2020 deadline, the parties agreed to a ten-day stand-down agreement which pushed the document production due date to February 21, 2020. (Diaz Decl. ¶10, Exh. G.) However, no supplemental production has been produced. (Diaz Decl. ¶10.)

In opposition, Defendants argue the 10-day “stand-down” is contrary to the parties communications. Defendants contend the 10-day “stand-down” was so the parties may focus on settling the matter. Moreover, the “stand-down” continued through the filing of the stipulation for stay in this action. (Maher Decl. ¶4.) While the parties may have continued to settle the matter beyond the initial 10-day “stand-down”, Defendants have not demonstrated the “stand-down” was extended.

As such, the court finds Plaintiffs have followed the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(b). The court notes that although there could have been some confusion as to whether the discovery was stayed past the ten-days, Plaintiffs have demonstrated they followed the requirements of the Section.

Documents Nos. 1 – 88

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document. (CCP §2025.450(a).) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (CCP §2025.450(b)(1).)

The court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause compelling Defendant Mary’s deposition and the production for inspection of documents Nos. 1 – 88. Document Requests Nos. 1 – 76 requests communications between Mary and Plaintiffs, between Mary and her entities, checks issued by Mary and cashed by Mary, and all photographs in Mary’s possession, custody, or control depicting Plaintiffs. Specifically, Mary has not produced records reflecting payments for work performed at any of the real properties. Document Requests Nos. 77 – 88 asks for text messages between Mary and Plaintiffs and/or individuals related to the matter.

As for the request to allow the deposition to exceed the seven hour limit, the court grants the request.Given the complexity of this matter and the many documents potentially to be produced and discussed at the deposition, the court agrees that a deposition of 12 hours (total) is appropriate.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 against Defendants, and her attorneys, jointly and/or severally. Plaintiffs’ counsel states she spent 5.8 hours preparing the motion and billed her clients at the rate of $300/hr, plus $60 filing fee. (Diaz Decl. ¶11.)

Plaintiffs argue sanctions are warranted due to Defendants’ failure to produce documents in response to a proper deposition notice, and despite repeatedly telling this court the production would be made, combined with a refusal to give firm dates for the second session of her deposition, constitutes a misuse of discovery process within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.

It has been established that if a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, 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. (CCP §2025.450(g)(1).)

In opposition, Defendants argue sanctions are inappropriate in this case but if the court does imposes sanctions, Defendants request the sanctions be imposed against Defendants’ former counsel, Kasra Torabi. However, the court finds the request for sanctions warranted. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on February 28, 2020. During these past six months, Defendants could have produced the documents as requested and set a date for Mary’s deposition. They chose not to.

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions in the amount of $1800 against payable as follows: $600 by Kasra Torabi; $600 by current counsel; and $600 by Mary, as this conduct seems to be fairly apportioned between all three. Sanctions to be paid within 30 days.