YURY GEYLIKMAN VS. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067575    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: E

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (2 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, 2023.010 et seq)

Date: 11/22/19

Case: Yury Geylikman, et al. v. Solarcity Corporation, et al. (EC 067575)

TENTATIVE RULING:

I. MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant A-1 All American Roofing Co. Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Anna Geylikman is ordered to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three, without objection, within 10 days. Plaintiff Anna Geylikman is further ordered to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.

Plaintiff Yury Geylikman is ordered to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three, without objection, within 10 days. Plaintiff Yury Geylikman is further ordered to serve responses to Request for Production of Documents, Sets Two and Three, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.

II. MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Defendant A-1 All American Roofing Co. Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion for Admissions of Requests for Admissions is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Yury Geylikman and Anna Geylikman have failed to serve timely responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Defendant A-1 All American Roofing Co., Inc.’s Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Anna Geylikman (Set No. One) are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c). The Court further orders that all matters specified in Defendant A-1 All American Roofing Co., Inc.’s Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Yury Geylikman (Set No. One) are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

III. REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

With respect to each motion, defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,720. Confusingly, defendant submits nearly two identical declarations of Jessica McKennon, both of which, according to their captions, are purportedly submitted in support of both motions. (See 9/13/19 McKennon Decl. [filed 9/16/19]; 9/23/19 McKennon Decl. [filed 9/24/19].) The 9/13/19 McKennon declaration, however, states that it is submitted in support of the Motion to Compel, but then confusingly provides two amounts -- $1,540 and $1,720 – purportedly spent on the “instant motion” in “reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees.” (9/13/19 McKennon Decl. ¶¶ 1, 9.) Adding to the confusion, the 9/23/19 McKennon declaration states it is made in support of both motions and also confusingly provides two amounts -- $1,540 and $1,720 – purportedly spent on both of the “instant motions.” (9/23/19 McKennon Decl. ¶¶ 1, 10.) The Court also notes that both declarations claim a $60 expense for “Filing fees re: Motion for Protective Order,” where clearly no such motion is at issue here. (9/13/19 McKennon Decl. ¶ 9; 9/23/19 McKennon Decl. ¶ 10.) Compounding the confusion and calling further into question the reliability of either declaration, both declarations erroneously state that this Court previously granted defendant’s motions to compel on 5/17/19 and imposed sanctions of $2,220. (9/13/19 McKennon Decl. ¶ 8; 9/23/19 McKennon Decl. ¶ 9.) This Court, however, takes judicial notice of the fact that, on 5/17/19, the Court made no such ruling, because defendant had taken off calendar its motion to compel deposition scheduled to be heard that date. The Court notes, however, that on 4/5/19, the Court had granted defendant’s two motions to compel discovery and awarded sanctions of $1,110 as to each motion, for a total of $2,220.

Accordingly, considering the reasonable value of the instant, unopposed motions and associated costs, the Court hereby awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $675 (three attorney hours at $185 per hour, plus two $60 filing fees), against plaintiffs Yury Geylikman and Anna Geylikman, and plaintiffs’ attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300 (c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), 2033.280(c).)