Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV34350, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV34350, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34350 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, Including Terminating Sanctions, Against Defendants, Yoon Hee Yeh aka Charles Y. Yeh and Kyeung Suk Yeh aka Christine K. Yeh.

BACKGROUND

WATERS, LLC and WATERS & RUSS, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against YOON HEE YEH and KYEUNG SUK YEH (“Defendants”), alleging that they breached the terms of their personal guaranty by failing to pay past due debts, including rent owed under a lease with non-party HYUNDAE CAR WASH, INC. The cause of action is Breach of a Personal Guaranty.

Plaintiffs bring a motion requesting the Court impose terminating or evidentiary sanctions, and $2,760.00 in monetary sanctions, because Defendants did not comply with the Court’s 2/7/24 order compelling responses to Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories. Defendants oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery-order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434. “If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ ” Ibid., at p. 1435.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs sufficiently show that Defendants failed to answer all the form interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs and to verify the responses. Defendants’ opposition shows only one Defendant’s verification and both Defendants’ responses fail to respond to Form Interrogatories Nos. 15 and 50.1 through 50.6. Even accepting that Defendant Yoon Hee Yeh signed his verification to the responses, Defendants’ further responses remain woefully inadequate in terms of complying with this Court’s 2/7/24 order.

As a matter of calendar management, courts have discretion as to whether to continue a motion and allow supplemental documents, or to decide a motion on the existing documents. Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn. (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1015. The Court continues the motion to give Defendants one more opportunity to comply with the California Discovery Act by serving verified, complete further responses to the form interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs. If Defendants continue to misuse the discovery process by not complying, they run the very real risk that the Court will grant the terminating, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions requested by Plaintiffs.

The motion hearing is continued to 4/19/24 at 8:30 a.m.

A supplemental opposition may be served and filed by 4/17/24. A supplemental reply may be served and filed by close of business (5:00 p.m.) on 4/18/24. In addition, if Defendants have new counsel representing them in this case, such counsel must file a substitution of counsel form in order to represent Defendants at the 4/15/24 and 4/19/24 hearings in this case.