This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/04/2021 at 05:49:47 (UTC).

GAYANE BURSALIAN ET AL VS PROCESS CELLULAR INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/02/2018 GAYANE BURSALIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PROCESS CELLULAR INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, THOMAS D. LONG, HOLLY E. KENDIG and CHARLES C. LEE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6871

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

THOMAS D. LONG

HOLLY E. KENDIG

CHARLES C. LEE

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

BURSALIOGLU MIKHAIL

BURSALIAN GAYANE

BURSALIOGLU TOROS

Defendants and Respondents

PROCELL

DOES 1 TO 40

PROCESS CELLULAR INC.

AYVAZIAN HARRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

KAZANDJIAN YEZNIK O. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

RIKLIS KRISTOFER

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/30/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/30/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/30/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

9/30/2020: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

9/30/2020: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

9/30/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

12/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

1/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

2/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

2/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

2/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE FROM PLAINTIFFS GAYANE BURSALIAN, MIKHAIL BURSALIOGLU AND TOROS BURSALIOGLU , SUPPLEMENTAL DECLAR

2/18/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE FROM PLAINTIFFS GAYANE BURSALIAN, MIKHAIL BURSALIOGLU AND TOROS BURSALIOGLU , SUPPLEMENTAL DECLAR

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

2/26/2021: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

2/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES; HEAR...)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO SERVE AND FI...)

12/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO SERVE AND FI...)

CoverSheet -

3/2/2018: CoverSheet -

Complaint -

3/2/2018: Complaint -

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2022
  • Hearing03/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2022
  • Hearing03/14/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES); Filed by Process Cellular Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
81 More Docket Entries
  • 12/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve and Fi...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Gayane Bursalian (Plaintiff); Mikhail Bursalioglu (Plaintiff); Toros Bursalioglu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gayane Bursalian (Plaintiff); Mikhail Bursalioglu (Plaintiff); Toros Bursalioglu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Gayane Bursalian (Plaintiff); Mikhail Bursalioglu (Plaintiff); Toros Bursalioglu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696871    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GAYANE BURSALIAN, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

PROCESS CELLULAR INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC696871

[AMENDED TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Dept. 31

10:00 a.m.

February 26, 2021

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiffs, Gayane Bursalian (“Bursalian”), Mikhail Bursalioglu (“Mikhail”), and Torus Bursalioglu (“Torus”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Process Cellular Inc. dba Procell (“Process”) and Harry Ayvazian for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiffs allege Process was working on the roof of the apartment where Plaintiffs reside and damaged the roof, so that when it rained, water leaked into Plaintiffs’ apartment and caused Plaintiffs to slip and fall on the water.

    On 9/30/20, Process filed the instant 12 motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents (“RPDs”), and request for admissions (“RFAs”), sets one, against each Bursalian, Mikhail, and Torus. An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was set in this matter for 1/28/21; however, the IDC did not resolve the issues because Plaintiffs, without explanation, failed to appear. (Min. Order 1/28/21.)

    Process now moves to compel further responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories against Bursalian. The court heard two of the motions to compel further on 2/2/21, where the court continued and advanced the hearings on all the motions to 2/26/21 to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to file an opposition pursuant to code.

    Plaintiff filed untimely oppositions to each of the motions. Process then filed an omnibus reply to the motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, motions to compel further responses to RPDs, and motions to compel further responses to RFAs.

    The discovery requests, discovery responses, the moving papers, oppositions and replies are largely identical, and thus, they will be addressed together.

    As an initial matter, the court notes Process submits evidence showing it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the subject discovery prior to filing the instant motions. (Mots. Riklis Decl. ¿¿ 13-15.) The evidence is sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement for the motions to compel further.

  2. Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Sets One, and Special Interrogatories, Sets One

    CCP § 2030.300(a) states: On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

    (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

    (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

    (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

  1. Form Interrogatories

Process moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.7, 7.1 and 17.1. Process contends the responses are evasive and incomplete. Further, Process contends that in response to 17.1, Plaintiffs each fail to produce any documents and make them readily identifiable.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue the interrogatories are unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff contends Process served a total of 379 discovery requests on each of the Plaintiffs that seek irrelevant and redundant information. Plaintiffs contend the requests are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs submitted an identical opposition to each of the 12 motions to compel further at issue.

In response to each subject form interrogatory, Plaintiffs asserted general objections. It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege. (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.) However, while Plaintiffs filed an opposition and contend the requests violate Plaintiffs’ privacy rights and seek privileged information, among other arguments, Plaintiffs do not establish the appropriateness of any objections, much less a general objection contained in the preliminary statement of the responses. Plaintiffs merely assert in a conclusory fashion that the discovery is overbroad and seeks privileged information but do not articulate how or point to any specific request to show it is improper. It is not the court’s burden to guess or surmise out how the discovery requests are overbroad.

Moreover, the court finds the responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 concerning the instant RFAs are evasive and incomplete. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).) Plaintiffs failed to answer all interrogatories and their subparts fully. For example, in response to form interrogatory 6.7 asking Plaintiffs to identify any healthcare providers that Plaintiffs have received treatment from, including the name and address, complaint treatment was advised for, and cost of treatment, Plaintiffs merely responded, “Yes.”

Consequently, Process’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.7, 7.1 and 17.1 against each Plaintiff are granted.

  1. Special Interrogatories

Process moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 2-233 against each Plaintiff. Process avers Plaintiffs’ responses are evasive and incomplete, and the objections asserted are without merit.

CCP § 2030.220 provides:

(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

CCP §2030.030 limits the number of interrogatories that can be propounded to 35. CCP § 2030.040 permits a party to propound more than 35 special interrogatories with a declaration of necessity. CCP § 2030.040(a) states: Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

CCP § 2030.090(b)(2) permits a party receiving interrogatories in excess of 35 to move for a protective order limiting the interrogatories to 35.

In this case, in response to special interrogatories 2-35, Plaintiffs responded with general objections and stating, “Discovery is continuing.” Plaintiffs, however, fail to establish the appropriateness of any objections to these interrogatories. Moreover, the responses are evasive, incomplete and do not comply with CCP § 2030.220. The interrogatories seek straightforward information that Plaintiffs provide no reason they cannot answer.

The motions are granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 2-35.

In response to special interrogatories Nos. 36-223, Plaintiffs asserted, “Objection; this interrogatory violates section 2030.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.” Again, Plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of establishing any objection is proper. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs objected to over 35 interrogatories being propounded by Process, Process provided a declaration of necessity explaining the reasons for the excess discovery. Plaintiffs did not file a protective order to the excess discovery, and Plaintiffs do not otherwise establish any particular requests are not reasonable or necessary.

Therefore, Process’s motions are granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 36-223.

In response to special interrogatories Nos. 224-233, Plaintiffs did not provide complete and substantive responses to the requests. The responses are deficient.

The motions to compel further responses are granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 224-233 against each Plaintiff.

  1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs, Sets One

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

Here, Process moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, Nos. 1-33 against each Plaintiff. Process argues Plaintiffs did not include complete statements of compliance or inability to comply, set forth incomplete statements of compliance by failing to produce or identify documents, and set forth meritless objections.

In response to RPDs Nos. 1-6, 9-14, 17, and 19-33, Plaintiffs set forth objections and responded, “Plaintiff will produce all non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this request.” In response to RPDs Nos. 7-8, 15-16, and 18, Plaintiffs responded, “Objection: Irrelevant, violates Plaintiff’s privacy, overbroad.”

First, as to RPDs Nos. 1-6, 9-14, 17, and 19-33, while Plaintiffs stated all non-privileged documents would be produced, no documents were actually provided in response to any request. Moreover, although Plaintiffs assert they will produce all non-privileged documents, this suggests Plaintiffs have privileged documents in its possession responsive to the discovery requests. However, Plaintiffs responses do not comply with CCP § 2031.240(b)-(c).

In asserting an objection, including one based on privilege, Plaintiffs must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made,” and “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product … that claim shall be expressly asserted.” (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1)-(2).) Furthermore, for objections based on a claim of privilege or work product protection, the response must provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (Id. at § 2031.240(c)(1).) Thus, Plaintiffs must provide code compliant responses to the RPDs in asserting any privileges.

Moreover, as to RPDs 7-8, 15-16, and 18, Plaintiffs do not establish that any objections based on privacy are appropriate, or that any particular request is irrelevant or overbroad.

Therefore, Process’s motions to compel further responses to RPDs are granted against each Plaintiff.

  1. Motions to Compel Further Responses to RFAs, Sets One

Process moves to compel further responses to RFAs, sets one, Nos. 9-13 against each Plaintiff.

CCP § 2033.290 states:

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.

Pertaining to the scope of each response, CCP § 2033.220 provides:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

In this case, Plaintiffs responded as follows to RFAs Nos. 9-13: “Plaintiff incorporates the Preliminary Statement and General Objections as if set forth fully herein. Subject to and without the foregoing, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff is unable to accept or deny this request, and as such, DENIES it.”

The court finds the responses to RFAs Nos. 9-13 are evasive and incomplete as the responses do not comply with CCP § 2033.220.

Accordingly, Process’s motions to compel further responses to RFAs Nos. 9-13 are granted.

  1. Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b).) Process requests sanctions various amounts for each of the 12 motions to compel furthers. Because the motions are largely identical, the court awards Process 1 hour for each motion to compel further form interrogatories [1 hour x 3 motions = 3 hours total], 1 hour for each of the motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories [1 hour x 3 motions = 3 hours total], 1 hour for each motion to compel further responses to RPDs [1 hour x 3 motions = 3 hours total], 1 hour for each motion to compel further responses to RFAs [1 hour x 3 motions = 3 hours total], 1 hour for each reply [4 replies x 1 hour = 4 hours], and 1 hour for appearing at the hearing on these motions- but awards this time only once- all at the requested rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $3,400.00. Further, the court awards Process 12 motion filings fees of $60, or $720 total in costs.

Process requests sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record. Process do not identify any conduct by Plaintiffs warranting sanctions against them personally. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ counsel only. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Process, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $4,120, within twenty days.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 26th day of February, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC696871    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GAYANE BURSALIAN, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

PROCESS CELLULAR INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC696871

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Dept. 31

10:00 a.m.

February 2, 2021

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiffs, Gayane Bursalian (“Bursalian”), Mikhail Bursalioglu, and Torus Bursalioglu (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Process Cellular Inc. dba Procell (“Process”) and Harry Ayvazian for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiffs allege Process was working on the roof of the apartment where Plaintiffs reside and damaged the roof, so that when it rained, water leaked into Plaintiffs’ apartment and caused Plaintiffs to slip and fall on the water.

    On 9/30/20, Process filed the instant motions to compel further responses against Gayane Bursalian to form interrogatories and special interrogatories, sets one. An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was set in this matter for 1/28/21; however, the IDC did not resolve the issues because Plaintiffs, without explanation, failed to appear. (Min. Order 1/28/21.)

    Process now moves to compel further responses to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories against Bursalian. As of 1/29/21, no opposition has been filed.

  2. Motions to Compel Further

    CCP § 2030.300(a) states: On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

    (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

    (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

    (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

  1. Form Interrogatories

Process moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.7, 7.1 and 17.1. Process contends the responses are evasive and incomplete. Further, Process contends that in response to 17.1, Bursalian fails to produce any documents and make them readily identifiable.

In response to each subject form interrogatory, Plaintiff asserted general objections. It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege. (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.) However, Bursalian did not file an opposition to the instant motion, and thus, does not establish the appropriateness of any objections, much less a general objection contained in the preliminary statement of the responses. Moreover, the court finds the responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 concerning the instant RFAs are evasive and incomplete. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).) Bursalian failed to answer all interrogatories and their subparts fully. For example, in response to form interrogatory 6.7 asking Bursalian to identify any healthcare providers that Bursalian has received treatment from, including the name and address, complaint treatment was advised for, and cost of treatment, Bursalian merely responded, “Yes.”

Consequently, Process’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.7, 7.1 and 17.1 is granted.

  1. Special Interrogatories

Process moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 2-233. Process avers Bursalian’s responses are evasive and incomplete, and the objections asserted are without merit.

CCP § 2030.220 provides:

(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

In this case, in response to special interrogatories 2-35, Bursalian responded with general objections and stating, “Defendant is continuing.” Bursalian, however, fails to establish the appropriateness of any objections to these interrogatories. Moreover, the responses are evasive, incomplete and do not comply with CCP § 2030.220. The interrogatories seek straightforward information that Bursalian provides no reason he cannot answer.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 2-35.

In response to special interrogatories Nos. 36-223, Bursalian asserted, “Objection; this interrogatory violates section 2030.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.” Again, Bursalian failed to file a reply, and thus, fails to meet the burden of establishing any objection is proper. Furthermore, to the extent Bursalian objected to over 35 interrogatories being propounded by Process, Process provided a declaration of necessity explaining the reasons for the excess discovery. Bursalian did not file a protective order to the excess discovery, and Bursalian does not otherwise establish the requests are not reasonable or necessary.

Therefore, Process’s motion is granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 36-223.

In response to special interrogatories Nos. 224-233, Bursalian did not provide complete and substantive responses to the requests. The responses are deficient.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories Nos. 224-233.

  1. Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b).) Process requests sanctions of $1,520 for the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories and $1,680 for the motion to compel further to special interrogatories. The court awards Process 3.3. hours for the motion to form interrogatories, 4.1 hours for the motion to special interrogatories, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing- but awards this time only once- all at the requested rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $1,680.00. Further, the court awards Process two motion filings fees of $60, or $120 in costs.

Process requests sanctions against Bursalian and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record. Process does not identify any conduct by Bursalian warranting sanctions against Bursalian personally. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ counsel only. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Process, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $1,800, within twenty days.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PROCESS CELLULAR INC. is a litigant