Jeffery David Horn v. Petros Andakyan

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) [the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed].)

Defendants request attorneys' fees and the $60.00 filing fee for this motion as sanctions. Defendants ' counsel bills it at a rate of $2 55 per hour. (Tomlinson Decl., P. 14.) Counsel's rate is reasonable. Defendants' Counsel spent three hours preparing this motion and requests another three and a half hours for drafting a reply and attending the hearing. Three hours for preparing this motion is reasonable. Three hours to draft the motion is reasonable, but there was no opposition and no reply, so the Court awards three hours for the motion and one for attending the hearing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants $ 1, 080 ($2 55 x 4 + $60) in sanctions.

Conclusion

Defendants' Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded $ 1, 080 in sanctions.

Jeffery David Horn v. Petros Andakyan, Case No. 24SMCV06116 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Petros Andakyan 's Deposition Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

This is a motor vehicle negligence case. On December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Jefferey David Horn and Jonathan Paul Sparrman sued Defendants Petros Andakyan and Margarita Andakyan for damages arising from a car accident on February 2, 2023. On April 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Petros Andakyan's deposition. On April 28, 2026, the Court granted an ex parte application to shorten time to hear the motion. On May 18, 2026, Petros Andakyan filed a stipulation to his liability, and Plaintiffs took the motion to compel off calendar.

On July 22, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion for an Mandatory Settlement Conference order. On August 3, 2026, instead of advancing the hearing on Defendants' motion, the Court referred the parties to a low-cost court mediation program. On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff moved to Compel Petros Andakyan's deposition again. On August 18, 2026, the Court advanced the hearing. On August 27, 2026, Defendant filed opposition. On August 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Motion to Compel Deposition

If a party to an action is served with a deposition notice and fails to appear or proceed, the noticing party may move for an order compelling the deponent's testimony and the production of any documents described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(a).) The Discovery Act confers upon litigants the right to take depositions without prior court order or approval and, accordingly, with an exception not here applicable, does not require any showing of good cause for the taking of depositions." (Kramer v.

Superior Ct. Of Los Angeles Cnty. (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 755.) A deponent may be examined "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party." (Id. at 756.) "A Motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: 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.

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. . ." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2025.450(b).) "If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 . . . 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." (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 2025.450(g).)

Analysis

Following a review of the materials submitted in support of this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements for moving to compel a deposition. Horn noticed a deposition for August 5, 2026, and Defendant failed to appear. (Mehta Decl., P. 19.) Andakyan is the subject of this action. Plaintiff alleges that he caused Plaintiff's injuries by hitting him with his car. Even though Andakyan has admitted liability, his deposition may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding causation or injuries. Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that the deposition is relevant. Andakyan has not moved for a protective order, nor does he provide any authority showing that the Court can deny a motion to compel a deposition because the deponent lives in a rural area and does not have internet. Therefore, the Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

Case Number: 25SMCV02184 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Margarita Franco v. Lawrence Bender, Case No. 25SMCV02184 Lawrence Bender' s Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff's Supplemental Experts Hearing Date: September 10, 2026

Background

On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff Margarita Franco ("Franco") sued Defendant Lawrence Bender ("Bender") for motor vehicle negligence arising from a car accident on October 17, 2023, on Montana Avenue and 12th Street in Santa Monica, California. On November 11, 2025, the parties attended an IDC and resolved a dispute regarding supplemental responses to Franco's interrogatories and requests for production. On July 31, 2026, Bender filed this Motion to Exclude or Limit Testimony of Plaintiff's Supplemental Retained Experts. On August 3, 2026, the Court advanced the hearing on that motion to September 10, 2026. On August 27, 2026, Franco filed Opposition. On August 31, 2026, Bender filed a reply. Jury Trial is set for November 30, 2026.

Bender seeks to exclude Franco's supplemental expert's liability testimony beyond the subjects disclosed by Bender's retained expert. Dr. Gardiner is a biomechanical engineer and Dr. Gish is an accident reconstructionist. Bender contends that both experts are case-in-chief experts, not rebuttal experts, because they will testify on central elements of Franco's case-in-chief. Bender also contends that the experts' declarations exceed the scope of the evidence Defendants' expert offers and that their testimony would be impermissibly cumulative.

In opposition, Franco argues that Bender's motion should be denied because she complied with the express language of the expert designation statute and because the additional experts will testify on the same topics as Defendants' expert. Franco argues that any breadth issues should be resolved at the motion in limine phase and that there has been no prejudice to Bender.

In reply, Bender argues that the supplemental expert statute does not allow a party to hold back experts on matters in knew or reasonably should have known would be contested. Bender argues that accident reconstruction and biomechanics were reasonably foreseeable areas of expert testimony, so Franco should not be permitted to add experts late. Bender argues that it would be prejudiced because it will have to schedule and take additional expert depositions before trial.

Governing Law- Expert Disclosure

"Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial."¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2034.210, subd. (b).)¿¿The exchange of expert witness information shall include either of the following: (1) a list setting forth the name and address of a person whose expert opinion that party expects to offer in evidence at the trial, or (2) a statement that the party does not presently intend to offer the testimony of