Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21GDCV00923, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00923    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Sylvia Tsao

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Feng Lian Sun

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Feng Lian Sun filed this action on July 8, 2021 against, among others, Defendant Sylvia Tsao (“Tsao”). This action arises out of the death of Szu Ming Tsao (“Decedent”). Plaintiff was Decedent’s wife at the time of his death, and Tsao was Decedent’s sister. Plaintiff alleges that Tsao, along with other members of Decedent’s family, has prevented her from gaining access to certain funds and assets following Decedent’s death.    

            On October 6, 2021, Tsao served Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on Plaintiff. (Lu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff served responses on November 29, 2021, and subsequently served supplemental responses on July 11, 2022 following an informal discovery conference with the court. (Lu Decl., ¶¶ 4-8, Ex. 6.) On July 16, 2022, counsel for Tsao sent a meet and confer letter to counsel for Plaintiff regarding perceived deficiencies in the supplemental responses. (Lu Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 7.) The parties were ultimately unable to resolve their dispute. (Lu Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

            Tsao now moves to compel a further response from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16.  

LEGAL STANDARD

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory or a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

DISCUSSION

A complete response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 requires stating all facts supporting the responding party’s denial of a request for admission, identifying all individuals (plus contact information) with knowledge of those facts, and identifying all documents that support the factual response (including identifying all individuals who have possession of any identified documents). The court finds that Plaintiff’s responses are all incomplete. Although Plaintiff did respond with facts, Plaintiff did not provide any names, addresses, or phone numbers of persons with knowledge of the facts, and Plaintiff did not clearly identify any documents in support of the responses. To the extent that documents were referenced in the responses, Plaintiff also did not provide the name, address, or telephone number of individuals who have the documents. However, to the extent that Tsao seeks to compel a further response as to the facts provided by Plaintiff, the court finds that further responses are not necessary. In light of the extensive meet and confer efforts by the parties and in view of the overall outcome of the motion, the court finds that it is equitable that Plaintiff be sanctioned for unsuccessfully opposing the motion. Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification in refusing to further supplement her responses, and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Tsao’s motion to compel further responses. The court orders Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(c) and (d) with respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 within 20 days of the date of this order.

The court grants Tsao’s request for monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiff to pay Tsao’s counsel $2,600 within 30 days of this order.  

Tsao is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 20, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court