1 LINET MEGERDOMIAN, ESQ.

(SBN 253898)
MEGERDOMIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
2 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 220
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
3 Telephone: (877) 734-3095
Fax: (818) 272-8634
4 Email: lm@megerdomianlaw.com

5
Jeff Greco, Esq
6 Greco Neyland, P.C.
401 Wilshire Blvd.
7 12th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
8 Telephone: (213) 984-2300
Email: jeff@grecoca.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10

11

12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
14

15
SONIA GRAMAJO-OLIVARRI CASE NO.: 21STCV05451
16
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
17 Plaintiff, MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; and
18 v. DECLARATION OF LINET
MEGERDOMIAN IN SUPPORT OF
19 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
20 PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND
ALLIANTE INTERNATIONAL, MONETARY SANCTION
21 NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET,
INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Date: June 19, 2013
22 CHRISTIAN ROBLEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, Dept. 54
CARMEN MORENO, AN INDIVIDUAL, Time: 9:00 a.m.
23 AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

24 Defendants
25

26 To Defendants and to its attorney of record:

27 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 19, 2013 or as soon thereafter as the matter may

28 be heard, in Department 53 this court, located at 813 Sixth Street, Sacramento, the Plaintiff, Sonia
 1 Gramajo-Olivarri will, and hereby does, move for an order compelling Defendants, Alliante

2 International and Northgate Gonzalez Market, Inc., to serve on them a response to the Plaintiff’s

3 Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Special Interrogatories, Set One, and

4 Request for Form Interrogatories, which Plaintiff served on Defendants, on January 3, 2013 , and

5 will further move this court for an order requiring Defendants to pay a monetary sanction to

6 Plaintiff. The motion will be made on the grounds that Defendants have failed to serve a timely

7 response to the above-described production of documents.

8
The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration of Linet
9
Megerdomian, and the memorandum set forth below, on the records and file herein, and on such
10

11 evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

12

13

14 Dated: January 11, 2024 MEGERDOMIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C

15
____________________________
16 LINET MEGERDOMIAN, Esq.
17 Attorney for Plaintiff

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER
2 COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE,
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR
3 FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

4 1. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE,
5
AND THUS THE COURT SHOULD MAKE AN ORDER COMPELLING A
6 RESPONSE AND IMPOSING A MONETARY SANCTION FOR THE FAILURE
TO RESPOND.
7
A. Party May Move for Order Compelling Response and for Monetary Sanction. When
8 a
party makes an inspection demand under Section 2031.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure
9 and the party to whom the demand is directed fails to respond, the demanding party may
move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300).

11 B. Waiver of Objection to Demand. When the party to whom an inspection demand has
been
12 directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the demand,
including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Section
13 2018.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).

14
C. Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings.
15 The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to
16 compel a response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
17 of the sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2031.300(c)).

18 2. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO

ANSWER PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES-
19 GENERAL, AND FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BECAUSE
THE DEFEDANTS HAVE FAILED TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE. IF THE
20 MOTION IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHOULD ALSO IMPOSE A
MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO
21
SHOWING THAT IT ACTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION OR
22 THAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE
SANCTION UNJUST.
23
A. Statutory Authority.
24 If a party to whom interrogatories have been directed fails to serve a timely response,
the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response
25 (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290).

26 B. Burden of Justification on Nonresponding Party.

The service and filing of interrogatories pursuant to Section 2030.010 et seq. of the
27 Code of Civil Procedure places the burden on the interrogated party to respond by answer,
the production of writings, or objection. The obligation of response must be satisfied unless
28 excused by a protective order obtained on a factual showing of good cause why no response

3
 should be given (Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 487, 492, 114 Cal. Rptr.
1 310).

2 C. Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings.

The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030(a) of the Code of Civil
3 Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to
compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
4 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the
sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c)).
5

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4
 1 DECLARATION OF LINET MEGERDOMIAN IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER
COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND FOR
2 MONETARY SANCTIONS
3

4 I, LINET MEGERDOMIAN, declare:

5 1. I am the plaintiff in the above entitled action.

6 2. On January 3, 2013 I served my Request for Production, Set One, on the Defendants a

7 true copy with proof of service is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A and made a part
hereof.
8 3. I have not received any response to my Request for Production, Set One from the

9 plaintiff.
10 4. On February 14, 2013, I had served the “meet and confer” letter attached with a proof of

11 service, as Exhibit B, but have still not received any responses.

12 5. I ask that the court award sanctions of $120. I base my request for the imposition of a

13 sanction on basis that it took me 5 hours to research and prepare the instant motion. My
hourly wage is $12.00 per hour times 5 hours equals $60, (12 x 5 = 60). In addition, the
14 motion filing fee for this motion was $60. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws

15 of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

17 foregoing is true and correct.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28