CELEBRATED CONSULTING, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS VENTURA INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******7629 Hearing Date: October 3, 2022 Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted against Plaintiff is granted. Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses within 10 days.

Defendant’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel of record are granted in the reduced total amount of $1,530.00, payable within 15 days.

Three discovery motions are presently before the Court. Defendant Ventura Investment Company, LLC (“Ventura Investment”) (“Defendant”), moves for an order deeming admitted the truth of matters in Requests for Admission (Set One). Defendant also moves for orders compelling Plaintiff Celebrated Consulting, LLC (“Celebrated Consulting”) (“Plaintiff”), to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Notices of Motion, pg. 2.) For each of the three motions, Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel Sholom Goodman (“Goodman”) in the amount of $2,760.00, for a total amount of $8,280.00. (Notices of Motion, pg. 2.)

Defendant filed the three motions directed at Plaintiff on April 1, 2022. As of the hearing date, Defendant has not filed replies.

Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted the truth of matters in Requests for Admission (Set One) and an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One). (C.C.P. 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) Defendant submitted evidence it propounded its first set of discovery on Plaintiff on January 20, 2022, and, after receiving no responses by the deadline, Defendant agreed to extend the discovery deadline to March 15, 2022, and Plaintiff failed to provide initial responses to any of the discovery requests. (Decls. of Smith 2; Decls. of Berman, Exh. A (as to each Declaration).)

Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing the motions. (C.C.P. 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).) Moreover, even if Defendants serve responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in advance of the hearing, Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions remain at issue. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).)

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $8,280.00, reflecting at $2,760.00 for each motion based on 2 hours drafting each motion and an anticipated 4 hours spent in preparation for and in attending the hearing on the motions at rate of $450.00 per hour, in addition to the filing fee of $60.00 per motion. (Decls. of Berman 7.) However, given the motions are to be heard together on the same day, the request for 4 hours in fees in connection with each motion is duplicative. Moreover, considering COVID-19, the parties will appear remotely at the hearing, eliminating travel time. In view of the totality of the circumstances including Defendant’s lack of reply and the similarity of the motions to each other, the Court finds the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions against Defendants is $1,530.

Dated: October , 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court