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

Case Number: 21GDCV00923    Hearing Date: September 21, 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 Special 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 Special Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Lu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) 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. 4.) 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. 5.) The parties were ultimately unable to resolve their dispute. (Lu Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

            Tsao now moves to compel a further response from Plaintiff to Special Interrogatories Nos. 8, 11, 14, 18, and 26.  

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

Tsao seeks to compel a further response to interrogatories requesting “all facts” in support of contentions alleged in the complaint. Although Plaintiff provided such facts, Tsao contends that the facts provided are evasive or non-responsive. The court disagrees as to Special Interrogatories 8, 11, and 14.

The court agrees, however, as to Special Interrogatories 18 and 26. Special Interrogatory 18 asks Plaintiff to identify “WRITINGS,” but Plaintiff’s response did not identify any writings or state that no such writings exist. And Special Interrogatory 26 asked Plaintiff to identify all facts showing withdrawal from the accounts was “wrongful,” but Plaintiff’s response was incomplete. Plaintiff responded the withdrawals were “secretly” done without informing Plaintiff and adds that she did not have authority to access the accounts. Her response is incomplete because she does not describe how a secret transfer from an account over which she has no authority is wrongful.

The parties request sanctions against each other for unsuccessfully making, or unsuccessfully opposing, Tsao’s motion to compel. Given the mixed results of the motion, the court finds sanctions are not warranted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies in part and grants in part Tsao’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories. The court orders Plaintiff to serve full and complete verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories 18 and 26 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Tsao is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 21, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court