Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC582128, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: BC582128    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On May 8, 2024, Defendant Hun Sung Park (Park) served a fourth set of special interrogatories, production requests and request for admission (SROGs, Set Four; RPDs, Set Four; RFAs, Set Four) on Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church (Church.)

Based on Church’s nonresponse to this discovery, on July 3, 2024, Park filed motions to (1) compel responses to SROGs Set Four, (2) compel responses to RPDs, Set Four, and (3) deem the genuineness of any documents specified in RFAs, Set Four, be deemed admitted. All three motions request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Church and its counsel. The motions attach proofs of service showing service of the three motions on Church by electronic mail.

Church has not filed any oppositions to the motions.

On August 27, 2024, Park filed three notices of non-opposition to the motions.

Park’s motions are now before the Court.

II. Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to Interrogatories and Production, and Motion to Deem Admitted

A. Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) The discovering party can also make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; see Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce], 2033.070 [admission requests]);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce], 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [admission requests]); and

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce], 2033.280, subd. (b) [admission requests]).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

B. Analysis

Here, Park provides proof of service of SROGs Set Four, RPDs Set Four and RFAs Set Four on Church. (All Motions, Lorimier Decl., Exs. A [discovery and proof of service].)

Park provides evidence that the deadline for initial responses has passed and that Church has not responded. The discovery was served on May 8, 2024, thus the deadline for initial responses was June 10, 2024. (All Motions, Lorimier Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  

Last, a brief review shows that the discovery contains requests within the scope of discovery for this action because the interrogatories, production requests, and admission requests at issue involve matters germane to the claims before the Court.

Park’s motions are thus GRANTED as to (1) compelling responses to SROGs Set Four, (2) compelling responses to RPDs, Set Four, and (3) deeming the genuineness of the documents specified in RFAs, Set Four, as admitted.

C. Requests for Sanctions

1. Legal Standard

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion. As relates to interrogatories and production requests, the Court can deny sanctions if it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust, a standard not applicable to admission requests. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce], 2033.280, subd. (c); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [RFA sanctions are mandatory; no discretion].)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

2. Analysis

The failure to respond to authorized methods of discovery is a sanctionable discovery abuse. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, such an abuse has occurred through Church’s non-response to SROGs, Set Four, RPDs, Set Four, and RFAs, Set Four.

These abuses justify an award of sanctions equal to the amounts requested by Park, which seek reasonable compensation for the time spent on these motions by counsel against both Church and its counsel. (Mot., pp. 2, 4; Decl of de Lorimier at ¶ 4.)

Sanctions are thus GRANTED against Plaintiff Church and its counsel in the amount of (1) $400 in relation to SROGs, Set Four, (2) $400 in relation to RPDs, Set Four, and (3) $400 in relation to RFAs, Set Four.

III. Conclusion

Defendant Hun Sung Park’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set Four and Impose Monetary Sanctions [Res ID # 0963] is GRANTED.

Defendant Hun Sung Park’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request to Produce Documents, Set Four and Impose Monetary Sanctions [Res ID # 0963] is GRANTED.

Defendant Hun Sung Park’s Motion to Deem Admitted Genuineness of Documents and Impose Monetary Sanctions [Res ID # 1575] is GRANTED.

Responses without objections are ordered as to the Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days. The Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted. Sanctions in the total amount of $1200 against Plaintiff Church and its counsel, jointly and severally, is payable to Defendant’s counsel within  30 days.