Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV21242, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21242    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Vanessa Jung Tirman, Estate of Jonathan Dongin Jung, Jung Sik Jung, and Insoon Jung filed a complaint against Defendant The Bicycle Casino, Inc. for the wrongful death of Decedent Jonathan Dongin Jung (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s security guards attacked Decedent and caused his death.¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff Sik Jung propounded Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Request for Admission, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant The Bicycle Casino, LP (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Vanessa Jung propounded Request for Admission, Set Two and Form Interrogatories, Set One against Defendant. The discovery was propounded on December 13, 2023.

Defendant now moves for a protective order that it is not required to respond to the above discovery. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs oppose and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

When interrogatories, demands for documents, or requests for admissions have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(a), 2031.060(a),

The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: that the set of interrogatories, or particular  interrogatories in the set, need not be answered, that all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all, or that the set of admission requests, or particular requests in the set, need not be answered at all. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b), 2031.060(b), 2033.080(b).) The party seeking the protective order has the burden to show that good cause exists to grant the protective order. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) 

“ ‘Oppression’ means the ultimate effect of the burden of responding to the discovery is ‘incommensurate with the result sought.’ [Citation.] In considering whether the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, the court takes into account ‘the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.’ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(a)(2).)” (People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552.)

However, if the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories are unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.040(b).)

If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the party provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(c), 2031.060(g), 2033.080(c).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order under this section, unless it 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. §§ 2030.090(d), 2031.060(h), 2033.080(d).)

MEET AND CONFER

The declaration of Christoffer Gaddini states that after receiving the discovery, he sent a letter to Plaintiffs. (Gaddini Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) Plaintiffs refused to withdraw the discovery and asked Defendant to provide a list of questions that were duplicative. (Id. ¶ 11, Exh. 4.) Defendant responded with a final letter on January 15, 2024, arguing that Plaintiffs have the burden to justify the number of additional interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. 5.) The parties have not sufficiently met and conferred. However, in the interest of efficiency, the Court addresses the merits of this motion and admonishes counsel to properly meet and confer prior to filing any further motions.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the Court finds this motion is timely, seeing as discovery was propounded on December 13, 2023, and the parties attempted to meet and confer until January 15, 2023 when Defendant sent its final letter. Therefore, since this motion was filed February 1, 2024, it appears prompt.  

Defendant asserts that from August 2, 2022 to April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs have served the following on Defendant: 10 Requests for Admissions, 56 Requests for Production, 20 Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Requests for Interrogatories and Production of Documents. (Gaddini Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant argues that on December 13, 2023, Plaintiff propounded 241 discovery requests which are excessive, unduly burdensome, and intended to harass. (Motion, 3.)

The discovery at issue consists of the following from Plaintiff Sik Jung: Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set Two (numbers 13–67), Special Interrogatories, Set Two (numbers 16–137), Request for Admission, Set One (numbers 1–35), and Form Interrogatories, Set One.  The discovery at issue from Vanessa Jung consists of Request for Admission, Set Two (numbers 11–17) and Form Interrogatories, Set One (number 17.1 only). (Gaddini Decl., Exh. 2.)

Defendant’s counsel estimates it will take 175 hours to gather documents and respond to the new discovery. Counsel estimates an additional 20 hours will be required to ascertain which documents have already been produced and 30 hours to draft responses. (Id. ¶ 5.) In response to Defendant’s meet and confer letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel invited Defendant to provide a list of requests which are duplicative. Defendant did not provide a list.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has not shown good cause since the discovery requests are relevant.

As an initial matter, it is undisputed that Plaintiff Vanessa Tirman is deceased, yet discovery was served on her behalf after her death. Plaintiffs provide no reason why discovery propounded on her behalf should be answered, especially considering that the operative complaint (third amended complaint filed January 29, 2024), shows she is no longer a named party. Therefore, the motion for protective order is granted as to discovery propounded by Vanessa Tirman.

As for the Special Interrogatories, Set Two (numbers 16–137) propounded by Plaintiff Sik Jung, a declaration under section 2030.040 was provided for exceeding the thirty-five number limit. Parties are limited to propounding 35 special interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030.) Since Defendant seeks a protective order, Plaintiffs have the burden to justify the additional discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.040(b).) Plaintiffs’ opposition argues instead that the discovery is relevant to the issues in the case and does not appear to address section 2030.040(b). (Opp., 13–14.) Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden. Accordingly, the protective order is granted as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 36–137.

For the remaining discovery propounded by Sik Jung,[1] Defendant has the burden to show good cause. In support, Defendant primarily asserts past discovery abuses by Plaintiffs such as not providing verifications. Defendant also points to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatory which purportedly are duplicative of previous requests. (Motion, 11–12.) Defendant contends “[t]hese are just a few, of the many, examples of the repetitiveness and duplication of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.” (Id. at 12.) However, Defendant has failed to show good cause since it has not described in detail which requests are duplicative. Additionally, Defendant provides no basis for the estimate that it would take 75 hours to review documents in response to the Request for Production or 50 hours to respond to Request for Admissions, Set Two. Therefore, the motion for protective order as to the remaining discovery is denied.

Both parties seek monetary sanctions. Monetary sanctions are warranted as to both parties, but because the Court would award sanctions in equal amounts, the Court declines to impose sanctions. The Court admonishes counsel to meet and confer and attempt to resolve their issues before filing further discovery motions. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part. Request for Admission, Set Two and Form Interrogatories, Set One propounded by Vanessa Jung Tirman and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 36–137, propounded by Sik Jung, do not need to be answered by Defendant.

            The motion for a protective order surrounding the remaining discovery is denied.

            The Court further notes that a motion for protective order is scheduled for June 3, 2024. In light of the trial preference in this case, any counsel that files a motion to be heard after the trial date must concurrently seek permission from the Court to advance any hearing date, otherwise, the motion will not be heard prior to trial.

Counsel for Defendant shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.