Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 19STCV24098 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV24098, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV24098 Hearing Date: March 8, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories; Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Xuegang Liang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Golden Valley Place LLC (“GVP”) and Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD (“HK”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and premises liability.

On November 6, 2019, GVP filed an answer. On December 6, 2019, the clerk entered default against HK. Entry of default was set aside, and HK filed an answer on June 16, 2021.

On January 31, 2023, HK filed a Motion to Compel Discovery to be heard on March 8, 2023. On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 24, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

HK requests the Court compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. HK also requests the Court award sanctions totaling $1,194.80.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion as HK improperly brought two motions via one set of moving papers.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service. CCP § 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “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 to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”

CCP § 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

On June 2, 2022, HK served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; responses were due on July 6, 2022. Plaintiff has not served verified responses at the time of filing this motion. Plaintiff also did not respond to HK’s attempt to meet and confer.

Plaintiff did not file a substantive response, citing that HK unfairly combined two motions into one, limiting Plaintiff to only 15 pages for two oppositions. Given that Plaintiff made no arguments on the merits, despite only using 5 of the 15 pages alloted to Plaintiff, the Court grants the motion. There is no indication Plaintiff has or will serve code-compliant and verified discovery responses. The fact that HK combined two motions in one is not a basis in which the Court will deny an otherwise meritorious motion.

Sanctions

HK is entitled to sanctions as Plaintiff misused the discovery process by failing to provide timely answers and opposed the motions without substantive justification. HK requests $1,194.80 in sanctions, based on 4.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, and one $69.80 filling fee. 2 hours were spent preparing this motion, 1.5 hours were spent replying to the opposition and 1 hour will be spent appearing at the hearing. The Court notes that this should have been filed as two separate motions, rather than one. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $60.00 filling fee to account for this issue. The Court awards $870.00 in sanctions, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work and 2 $60.00 filling fees.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD's Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay HK $870.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant Hong Kong Supermarket Monterey Park, LTD is ordered to pay one additional $60.00 filling fee.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.