Mekhjian v. Costeau Holdings, LLC

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 514) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 514 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production (Set One) Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents Tentative Ruling The motions are granted.

Defendant Cousteau Holdings, LLC ("Defendant") moves to compel Plaintiff George Mekhjian ("Plaintiff") to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), to provide initial responses to Requests for Production (Set One), and to appear for deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The motions are granted.

Defendant's requests for sanctions are granted in part. Given the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, and the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions in the aggregate amount of $3,394.44, calculated based on five hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel's reasonable billing rate of $500 per hour, plus $180 in filing fees, plus $714.44 in costs incurred with Plaintiff's non-appearance at his deposition.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the three discovery motions filed by Defendant Costeau Holdings, LLC.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff George Mekhjian to serve verified, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant's Form Interrogatories (Set One) by no later than September 16, 2026.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff George Mekhjian to serve verified, code compliant responses, without objections, to Defendant's Requests for Production (Set One) by no later than September 16, 2026.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff George Mekhjian to appear for a deposition by video conference, to answer questions under penalty of perjury, and to produce the documents requested in the notice of deposition on September 30, 2026, at 10:00 am (or on such other date and time as may be agreed to in writing by all parties). Moving party is required to provide a link for the deposition to all parties at least 24 hours in advance of the deposition.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff George Mekhjian and his counsel of record Reza Sina, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant (through counsel) in the aggregate amount of $3,394.44 by no later than September 30, 2026. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCV31446 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 514 Garcia v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 24STCV31446 Defendant's Motion for Order Vacating Sanctions Order Tentative Ruling The motion is denied.

Discussion

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro") moves to vacate the Court's order of June 12, 2026, requiring Metro and its counsel, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff. Metro brings this motion under the discretionary relief provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

In its memorandum, Metro invokes section 473 but then makes two arguments that have nothing to do with relief under that section. Rather than arguing mistake, excusable neglect, or inadvertence, Metro argues that Plaintiff's motion was not filed in good faith and was itself a misuse of the discovery process. The Court finds no merit in these arguments. Contrary to Metro's arguments, there is no requirement under the Civil Discovery Act for counsel to meet and confer before filing the motions that were heard on June 12.

In the declaration of counsel, Ms. Camerlengo details some serious family medical issues that she was required to attend to in March and April, as well as a network disruption that Metro experienced in the same time frame. But counsel has not shown that Metro's failure to respond to the discovery, and Metro's failure to respond to the motion until one day before the hearing, merits discretionary relief under section 473, subdivision (b). Indeed, the facts surrounding Metro's failures were addressed at the hearing on June 12; the Court considered these facts and made the decision to impose the sanctions at issue.

Finally, the Court notes that it does not appear that Metro seeks relief under the mandatory provisions of section 473, subdivision (b). Nor could it, as mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b) is not available in response to the imposition of monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act. (See Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) The motion for