This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/21/2020 at 22:17:20 (UTC).

YOLLA GHANEM VS 24 HOUR FITNESS UNITED STATES INC

Case Summary

On 02/14/2018 YOLLA GHANEM filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 24 HOUR FITNESS UNITED STATES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELAINE LU and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4296

  • Filing Date:

    02/14/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELAINE LU

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GHANEM YOLLA

GHANEM JOHN PAUL

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

24 HOUR FITNESS UNITED STATES INC.

24 HOUR FITNESS UNITED STATES

Other

PRINDLE GOETZ BARNES & REINHOLTZ LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CASILLAS ARNOLDO ESQ.

CASILLAS ARNOLDO

Defendant Attorney

NICK JACK C.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALT, SUMMARY...)

10/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALT, SUMMARY...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS REGARDING THE DEP...)

2/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS REGARDING THE DEP...)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS

2/13/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY)

1/28/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/1/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERE...)

9/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERE...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE) OF 08/22/2019

8/22/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE) OF 08/22/2019

Separate Statement

7/3/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

7/3/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : Motion to Compel)

11/30/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Legacy Event Type : Motion to Compel)

Opposition - To Motion to Strike

7/31/2018: Opposition - To Motion to Strike

Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims) -

8/31/2018: Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims) -

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF YOLLA GHANEM TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;

8/30/2018: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF YOLLA GHANEM TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;

CoverSheet -

2/14/2018: CoverSheet -

Civil Case Cover Sheet -

2/14/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet -

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/26/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or in the alt, Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. l.,) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alt, Summary...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Mandatory Settlement Conference) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Status Conference (reMediation and Discovery) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (or in the alt, Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. l.,) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Non-Appearance Case Review (- COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND CONTINUING CASES SET ON A DARK DATE (8/07/2020);) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
102 More Docket Entries
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketOpposition Document; Filed by Yolla Ghanem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketOpposition To Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT 24 HOUR FITNESS USA INC.S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTFFS COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Yolla Ghanem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yolla Ghanem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Yolla Ghanem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Yolla Ghanem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694296    Hearing Date: October 23, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Case Number: BC 694296

Date: 10/23/2020 Trial date: None Set

Case Name: Ghanem v. 24 Hour Fitness United States Inc.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(OR, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication)

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Moving Party: Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Yolla Ghanem

Relief Requested:

Summary judgment in favor of defendant 24 Hour Fitness

In the alternative, summary adjudication of issues

Causes of Action from First Amended Complaint

1) Premises Liability

2) Gross Negligence

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT:

Plaintiff Yolla Ghanem alleges that an unidentified man exposed himself while she was in a shower at a gym facility owned and operated by defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was aware that criminals regularly sought out health club facilities such as defendant’s to engage in sexual assault and battery and lewd conduct, but that, despite this awareness, defendant failed to take actions or precautions to ensure the safety of its members.

Plaintiff’s spouse, plaintiff John Paul Ghanem, has filed a separate complaint for premises liability and gross negligence alleging that the incident has impacted plaintiff’s relationship with his wife in a meaningful way. The complaints have evidently been consolidated.

The file shows that on July 6, 2020, moving defendant 24 Hour Fitness filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, indicating that this matter is automatically stayed due to the filing in another court of a bankruptcy petition filed by 24 Hour Fitness on June 15, 2020. The motion is accordingly stayed.

RULING:

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication by 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is STAYED pursuant to the Notice of Stay of Proceedings filed by moving party on July 6, 2020, based on the filing by moving party on June 15, 2020 of a bankruptcy case filing in another court. The court will set a place holder hearing date for this motion for a period of time approximately 6 months from this date.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, the Here For You/Safe for You News Center, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC694296    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 7

Date: 2/21/20

Case No: BC 694296 Trial Date: October 26, 2020

Case Name: Ghanem v. 24 Hour Fitness United States Inc.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS AT DEPOSITION

(CCP § 2025.450(a); 2023.010 et seq.)

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Yolla Ghanem and John Paul Ghanem

Responding Party: Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED;

Compel Deposition of PMK and party affiliate Daniel Sussman and custodian of records to produce documents

Compel second deposition of defendants’ party affiliate Jocelyn Tapia to answer questions she was instructed not to answer

DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:

Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: Exs. 3, 4 (?)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Youlla Ghanem alleges that an unidentified man exposed himself while she was in a shower at a gym facility owned and operated by defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was aware that criminals regularly sought out health club facilities such as defendant’s facility to engage in sexual assault and battery and lewd conduct, but that, despite this awareness, defendant failed to take actions or precautions to ensure the safety of its members.

Plaintiff’s spouse, plaintiff John Paul Ghanem, has filed a separate complaint for premises liability and gross negligence alleging that the incident has impacted plaintiff’s relationship with his wife in a meaningful way. The complaints have evidently been consolidated.

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Compel Deposition

CCP § 2025.450 (a) provides:

“(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Under CCP § 2025.450 (b):

“(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) 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.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

The motion is irregular, as there is no showing that there has been a failure to appear, or to produce requested documents. The motion indicates it is an “anticipatory” motion, based on the conduct of defense counsel in connection with another deposition. The motion argues that without a court ruling concerning objections made in that other deposition as related to the future deposition, plaintiffs anticipate that defense counsel will make the same objections. The motion does not directly address the topics to be covered in the proposed deposition of Daniel Sussman, and those topics do not seem to involve the issues which arose in the other deposition. The topics appear limited to the recollection of the subject incident, the role of the witness as general manager, interactions with plaintiff Yolla Ghname, and policies and practices in place before and after the incident. [Ex. 3]. There is nothing ripe to compel here, or, in the alternative, the moving papers fail to meet the propounding party’s burden of showing entitlement to relief or setting forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of the subject documents.

The motion accordingly is denied as premature.

This leaves the issue of monetary sanctions, which are sought by both sides.

Under CCP § 2025.450 (g)(1):

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.”

No sanctions are awarded in favor of plaintiffs, as the motion is not granted.

As for defendant, the statute does not provide for sanctions in favor of the party who successfully defeats such a motion.

The opposition relies on CCP § 2025.480 (f), which allows for monetary sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel an answer at a deposition, which is not quite what the motion is here, However, it would appear that sanctions could be awarded under CCP § 2023.010, under which misuse of the discovery process includes:

“(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at an informal resolution has been made.”

CCP §2023.020 provides:

“Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

As set forth above, a motion to compel requires a meet and confer.

CCP §2016.040 requires:

“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.”

The meet and confer correspondence attached to the moving papers is an email which states:

“I’d like to meet and confer with you regarding a motion to compel we intend to file seeking further deposition responses from Ms. Tapia. During the deposition, you instructed Ms. Tapia not to answer any questions which sought information regarding similar incidents occurring at other facilities belonging to 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. I also want to meet and confer with you regarding your anticipated objection to the PMK deposition we just noticed; the PMK categories seek information into similar incidents at other facilities. See attached depo notices for Sussman’s depo on Fri., August 23 and the PMK/CORs depo on Mon., August 26. Please let me know if these dates work.”

[Ex. 4].

This does not appear to sufficiently discuss the issues giving rise to this motion, or to suggest that a separate motion regarding these deposition notices will be filed. Sanctions are awarded to the responding party for failure to meet and confer.

The sanctions sought are $1,050 (3 hours preparing opposition, 3 hours at hearing @ $175 per hour). These sanctions appear reasonable and are awarded.

Motion to Compel Answers at Deposition

Procedural

Untimely Motion

The opposition argues that the motion must be denied as untimely.

The motion is brought under CCP§ 2025.480, which provides, in pertinent part:

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

(Emphasis added).

The opposition indicates that the court reporter subscribed the reporter’s name to the transcript on August 28, 2019. [Ex. B]. The motion was filed and served on January 28, 2020, more than sixty days later.

The motion could accordingly be denied as untimely, but the court elects not to do so.

The reply argues that there were discussions between counsel concerning the earliest available date for an informal discovery conference being September 4, 2019, with the earliest available hearing dates being October 21, 2019, and that the parties agreed that since defense counsel was not available on September 4, 2019, the parties agreed to continue a hearing date on a motion for summary judgment and the trial date to allow an informal discovery conference later in September, and a date was finally obtained of November 2, 2019, and the hearings reserved for January 6, 2020, and that all of those dates were vacated when the case was transferred to the Glendale courthouse. [Gastelum Decl. Reply ¶¶ 3-6]. It is not clearly explained why with the various delays and communications between the parties’ counsel did not simply request an extension of time in writing to bring the subject motion. This might be discussed at the hearing.

Meet and Confer

There is also an argument in the opposition that the motion should be denied on the ground there was no detailed meet and confer. As set forth above, the meet and confer letter relied upon does briefly address the issue raised by this motion, indicating that a motion was in the works:

“I’d like to meet and confer with you regarding a motion to compel we intend to file seeking further deposition responses from Ms. Tapia. During the deposition, you instructed Ms. Tapia not to answer any questions which sought information regarding similar incidents occurring at other facilities belonging to 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.”

[Ex. 3].

While this attempt is not ideal, it is clear from the reply that ongoing communications were taking place, which were ultimately derailed by the transfer. The meet and confer is not so lacking that the motion should not be considered on this ground.

Substantive

With their motion, plaintiffs seek to compel a second deposition of defendant 24 Hour Fitness’ Assistant General Manager, Jocelyn Tapia, to answer questions she was instructed not to answer at her initial deposition, and to answer follow up questions based on those answers.

Relief is sought under CCP section 2025.480(a), which provides:

“(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

A trial court’s determination of a motion to compel discovery cannot be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1387.

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

CCP § 2025.460(b), governing deposition conduct, provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) The protection of information from discovery on the ground that it is privileged or that it is a

protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) is waived unless a specific objection to its disclosure is timely made during the deposition.

(b) Errors and irregularities of any kind occurring at the oral examination that might be cured if promptly presented are waived unless a specific objection to them is timely made during the deposition. These errors and irregularities include, but are not limited to, those relating to the manner of taking the deposition, to the oath or affirmation administered, to the conduct of a party, attorney, deponent, or deposition officer, or to the form of any question or answer. Unless the objecting party demands that the taking of the deposition be suspended to permit a motion for a protective order under Sections 2025.420 and 2025.470, the deposition shall proceed subject to the objection.

(c) Objections to the competency of the deponent, or to the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility at trial of the testimony or of the materials produced are unnecessary and are not waived by failure to make them before or during the deposition.”

Under Los Angeles County Local Rules, Appendix 3.A, Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, subdivision (e), governing depositions:

“(6) Counsel should refrain from repetitive or argumentative questions or those asked solely for purposes of harassment.

(7) Counsel defending a deposition should limit objections to those that are well founded and necessary for the protection of the client’s interest. Counsel should bear in mind that most objections are preserved and need to be interposed only when the form of a question is defective or privileged information is sought. (8) While a question is pending, counsel should not, through objections or otherwise, coach the deponent or suggest answers.

(9) Counsel should not direct a deponent to refuse to answer questions unless they seek privileged information or are manifestly irrelevant or calculated to harass.”

The separate statement shows that the motion concerns deposition questions falling into three categories.

First, there are questions concerning whether the witness is aware of sexual assaults on any of the 24 Hour Fitness premises where she has worked, some variant of, “In any of the 24 Hour Fitness facilities that you have worked at during your career, have you learned of any sexual assaults on any of the premises?”

Second, there are questions related to the witness having knowledge regarding males entering female shower areas, such as, “At any of the facilities, any of the 24 Hour Fitness facilities that you have worked at, had there ever been an incident of a man going into the women’s locker area?”

Third, there are questions relating to the witness having knowledge of “individuals who came in off the street, nonmembers sneaking into any other 24 Hour Fitness facility.”

The responses are objections that the questions are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, not relevant and to some a follow up objection that the inquiries are potentially attorney-client privileged, and potentially work product.

Follow up questions specified that the questions called for information only in the direct knowledge and experience of the deponent. The witness was instructed not to answer the questions.

The motion argues that it is improper to instruct a witness not to answer based on vagueness, overbreadth or relevancy objections, and that the questions do not call for privileged information.

As set forth above, it is not appropriate to instruct a witness not to answer in the absence of a valid privilege objection, to avoid waiver of the privilege. The questions clearly call for information discoverable in this matter, as it would be directly relevant to the claims in this matter that defendant knew of prior incidents and failed to take steps to protect its members. The questions are limited to the facilities in which the witness has worked, and incidents of which she obtained knowledge personally. To the extent she obtained such knowledge from an attorney, or during an investigation directed by an attorney, she should be permitted to answer questions which would establish that she knows of such incidents, and that she only knows of them because she was involved in a privileged investigation.

The questions here appear to be direct and not call for privileged information, and at best foundational, not requesting the content of any privileged communication.

The opposition argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to information concerning all of defendant’s facilities, but the deposition questions were directed only to those at which the witness had worked, which were all evidently located in the Southern California area, and the opposition does not explain how this limited area is overly broad or poses some burden to defendant. The issue of what occurred at other facilities is relevant to the issue of notice and knowledge which has been put at issue in this matter.

The opposition does not argue that the inquiries call for privileged information, when ordinarily the burden would be on the party withholding discovery on the ground of privilege to show that such a privilege applies. See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 (“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship,” citing D.I Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 729). The privilege objections, along with all other objections, are accordingly overruled, and the witness is ordered to answer the questions.

Under CCP §2025.480:

“(e) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given, or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.”

The court will enter an order and asks moving party to prepare such an order for the court’s signature.

Sanctions

Both sides seek sanctions.

Under CCP § 2025.480 (j):

“(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, 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.”

The court awards sanctions to plaintiffs for successfully bringing the motion. The sanctions sought are $5,285.00 (1-hour meeting and conferring, 5 hours preparing motion, 2 hours preparing reply, 3 hours travel to

and attend hearing @ $475.00 per hour, $60.00 filing fee). These amounts are excessive and are reduced to 6 hours total attorney time for sanctions of $2,850.00.

RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition Defendant 24 Hour Fitness United States, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable, Custodian of Records, and Party Affiliate Daniel Sussman is DENIED as premature.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving parties are DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Answers Regarding the Deposition Responses of Party Affiliate Jocelyn Tapia for Defendant 24 Hour Fitness United States, Inc. is GRANTED.

The deponent, Jocelyn Tapia, is ordered to give answers to the subject questions on the resumption of the deposition, to take place on or before March 6, 2020. Objections are overruled to the subject questions. Any objections to follow up questions may be interposed, and will be preserved, but the witness is not to be instructed not to answer.

Monetary sanctions requested by plaintiffs are GRANTED, as plaintiffs have successfully brought the motion. Monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,850.00 [$5,285 requested] plus filing fee of $60.00 are awarded in favor of plaintiffs Yolla Ghanem and John Paul Ghanem, and against defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. payable within thirty days. CCP §§ 2025.280 (j).