Glass Residential Group, Inc. v. Joseph Keyshawn Johnson and KJMKLV Development, LLC

2025, all reflecting a $2,500 rate (Dr. Mirshojae Decl, Exhibit B.)

Based on this evidence, the Court finds that Dr. Mirshojae has sufficiently shown that his charged and received rate within the relevant two-year period is $2,500 per hour. The Court finds that although Dr. Mirshojae has demonstrated that he has received $2,500 for deposition appearances in the past, he has not shown with competent evidence that this rate was regularly charged and received within the two-year statutory period. Because the most probative factor, frequency and regularity of payment, remains unsubstantiated, the Court sets a rate that reflects the portions of the evidence that are reliable while discounting those that are not. Accordingly, the Court determines that $2,000 represents a reasonable hourly fee under the circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Respondent's motion for order setting reasonable fee is GRANTED at a rate of $2000 per hour. The Court further orders that the witness is to receive prepayment of $2000..

DATED: August 25, 2026 _____________________ Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court

OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT GLASS RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. JOSEPH KEYSHAWN JOHNSON also known as KEYSHAWN JOHNSON, an Individual; KJMKLV DEVELOPMENT, LLC and DOES 1-25, Defendants.)))))))))))))) CASE NO: 25VECV03005 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KJMKLV DEVELOPMENT, LLC TO PROVIDE VERFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 1 Dept. U 8:30 a.m. August 25, 2026

A. BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff Glass Residential Group, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), filed the present action against defendants Joseph Keyshawn Johnson also known as Keyshawn Johnson and KJMKLV Development, LLC ("Defendants"). Plaintiff Glass Residential now moves to compel initial verified responses from Defendant KJMKL Development to Form Interrogatories, General, Set One.

On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant KJMKLV with Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One by email. (Davidson Decl., P.3; Exhibit 1)

On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff counsel sent a meet-and-confer email requesting full and complete responses to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery request by February 2, 2026. (Davidson Decl., P.10; Exhibit 2)

On February 2, 2026, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff's counsel requesting a 14-day extension to provide response because Defendant Johnson, the sole officer of Defendant KJMKL, had been ill. (Davidson Decl., P.11; Exhibit 3)

Plaintiff's counsel rejected the excuse, noting that Defendant Johnson had been visible during the alleged period of incapacity appeared on podcast, hired new contractor for the property, was observed meeting with an architect, and had been disparaging Plaintiff to third parties. (Davidson Decl., P.12; Exhibit 3)

Plaintiff further advised defense counsel that all objections had been waived due to untimeliness of Defendant KJMKLV's response. (Davidson Decl., P.14)

Defendant has continued to fail to produce any discovery responses (Davidson Decl., P.15.)

B. RULING

Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to form interrogatories--General, Set One is GRANTED.

Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $2025.00 against Defendant KJMKLV and counsel jointly and severally, payable within 20 days to Plaintiff through counsel

C. LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

D. DISCUSSION

Notice of these Motions was properly served on Defendants through counsel, and no oppositions were filed. It is undisputed on this record that no timely responses were served. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Defendant KJMKLV's response is GRANTED.

Defendant KJMKLV is ordered to serve full, verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories--General, Set One within twenty days of this Order.

The Court finds Sanctions are warranted. However, monetary sanctions are granted in a reduced amount of $2,025 (calculated at 4.5 hours x $450) against Defendant KJMKLV and counsel jointly and severally, payable within 20 days to Plaintiff through counsel. Moving party to give notice.

E. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories--General, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant KJMKLV is ORDERED to respond to Form Interrogatories--General, Set One within 20 days of its receipt of notice of this ruling. Plaintiff is ORDERED to give notice.

DATED: August 25, 2026 _____________________ Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->