Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV20085, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 21STCV20085 Hearing Date: April 11, 2023 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Cross-Defendant Ming Kang’s Motions
to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents and to
Interrogatories
Cross-Defendant Ming Kang moves to
compel cross-complainant Fan Shi to respond to request for production, set one;
special interrogatories, set one; form interrogatories – general, set one; and
form interrogatories – employment law, set one.
Order Compelling Responses
When a party fails to timely respond
to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the requesting party may move for
an order compelling responses. (CCP §§
2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [demands for inspection].) Failure to timely respond waives any
objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a);
2031.300(a).) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no
responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
Kang served the request for
production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories –
general, and form interrogatories – employment law, set one, on September 30, 2022. (Benson Decls., ¶ 3.) Shi initially served unsworn responses. (Id., ¶ 4.) After meeting and conferring, Shi’s counsel
agreed to serve verified responses by February 13, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 8, 9, Exs. F, H.) Shi had not served verified responses as of
March 8, when Kang’s counsel executed her declarations in support of these
motions. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 10.) Kang is therefore entitled to an order
compelling Shi to serve verified responses without objections to these
discovery requests.
Sanctions
Kang moves
for $1,985 in sanctions in the motion to compel responses to request for
production and $2,260 in the motion to compel responses to
interrogatories. Failing to respond to
an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject
to monetary sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Cross-complainant Fan Shi did not respond to
authorized discovery. The court finds Shi
did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the
circumstances.
Kang did
not, however, reasonably incur all claimed expenses. The amounts claimed include two hours at $275
hourly on each motion for “reviewing and replying to Shi’s opposition.” (Benson Decls., ¶¶ 10, 11.) Shi did not oppose these motions, and Kang
did not file any reply. Kang therefore
reasonably incurred $1,435 in expenses for the motion to compel responses to
request for production of documents and $1,710 for the motion to compel
responses to interrogatories.
Disposition
Cross-complainant
Ming Kang’s motion to compel cross-complainant Fan Shi to respond to request
for production of documents, set one is granted.
Cross-complainant
Fan Shi is ordered to serve
verified responses to request for production of documents, set one, without objections within 20 days.
Cross-complainant Fan Shi and Fan Shi’s counsel Ronald E. Norman of
Demidchik Law Firm are ordered to pay cross-defendant Ming Kang $1,435 in
sanctions within 20 days.
Cross-complainant Fan Shi and counsel Ronald E. Norman shall be jointly
and severally liable for the sanctions.
Cross-complainant
Ming Kang’s motion to compel cross-complainant Fan Shi to respond to interrogatories
is granted.
Cross-complainant
Fan Shi is ordered to serve
verified responses to special
interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories – general, set one, and form
interrogatories – employment law, set one, without objections within 20 days.
Cross-complainant Fan Shi and Fan Shi’s counsel Ronald E. Norman of
Demidchik Law Firm are ordered to pay cross-defendant Ming Kang $1,710 in
sanctions within 20 days.
Cross-complainant Fan Shi and counsel Ronald E. Norman shall be jointly
and severally liable for the sanctions.