Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCV11963, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Eric Hosuk Yoon’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Cuckoo Homesys Co. Ltd.’s person(s) most knowledgeable, Bonhak Koo is granted. Bonhak Koo is ordered to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents in 7 days.

Plaintiff Eric Hosuk Yoon (“Yoon”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Cuckoo Homesys Co. Ltd.’s (“Cuckoo Homesys”) (“Defendant”) person(s) most knowledgeable (“PMK”), Bonhak Koo (“Koo”), to appear for deposition and produce documents. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

CRC Rule 3.1354(b) provides in part, “[a]ll written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion. Objections to specific evidence must be referenced by the objection number in the right column of a separate statement in opposition or reply to a motion, but the objections must not be restated or reargued in the separate statement. Each written objection must be numbered consecutively . . ..”¿ (CRC Rule 3.1354(b), emphasis added.)

Defendant fails to consecutively number its objections in violation of CRC Rule 3.1354(b).¿ The Court in its discretion will consider Defendant’s objections and refers to each in the sequential order presented in Defendant’s evidentiary objections for a total of 7 objections.

Defendant’s 9/25/23 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Jay Hong (“Hong”) are overruled as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Defendant’s 9/25/23 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Yoon are overruled as to Nos. 6 and 7.

A motion to compel a deposition must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §§2016.040, 2025.480(b).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that he met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel on multiple occasions in order to ensure that the deposition would not be a waste of time or money for Plaintiffs. (Decl. of Hong ¶7, Exh. B.) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration substantially complies with the requirement of C.C.P. §2016.040, despite the declaration’s failure to state the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone in an attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by this motion.

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s PMK to be produced at Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s office. (Decl. of Hong ¶15, Exh. D.) On August 16, 2023, Defendant served a set of boilerplate objections to Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition. (Decl. of Jung ¶6, Exh. 3.) On August 21. 2023, Defendant produced Si On Heo (“Heo”) for deposition, and Plaintiffs’ counsel suspended the deposition, arguing Koo should have been produced. (See Decl. of Hong ¶9, Exh. C.) As of this hearing date, Defendant has failed produce Koo for deposition.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on September 11, 2023. Defendant filed its opposition on September 25, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their reply on September 29, 2023.[1]

C.C.P. §2027.010(b) provides, “[i]f a deponent is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, the service of the deposition notice is effective to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”

C.C.P. §2025.230 provides, “[i]f the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.”

All that a corporation is required to do in response to a PMK deposition notice is to produce the employee(s) “most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” (C.C.P. §2025.230.)

The requested topics in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition as to Defendant’s PMK include the following:

1. Any and all direct COMMUNICATIONS between PLAINTIFF and Bonhak Koo, Chief Executive Officer and/or Director of Defendant. Said “COMMUNICATIONS” referred herein this Notice shall include but not be limited to: phone conversations, oral/verbal conversations, discussions, text messages, emails, telephonic calls and/or text message made through the Kakaotalk phone application, and/or meetings from the period of 1/1/2019 to the present. Said PLAINTIFF referred herein this Notice shall refer to YOON and CARESYS, INC.

2. Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between PLAINTIFF and YOU (YOU as defined below and herein this Notice).

3. Any and all COMMUNICATIONS relating to PLAINTIFF and his interest, involvement, association, employment, relationship as to YOU.

6. Any and all agreements, written or verbal, entered into between YOU and PLAINTIFF.

13. Identify and authenticate any COMMUNICATIONS made between YOU and PLAINTIFF from the period of 1/1/2019 to the present.

22. Employment and Termination of YOON by YOU and/or CUCKOO RENTAL AMERICA, INC.

“When a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president or other official at the highest level of corporate management . . . the trial court should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information.” (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.) A corporate official who has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information will still be subject to deposition under the general scope of discovery. (Id. at pgs. 1287-1288.)

Here, Plaintiff demonstrated that Koo has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information compared to Heo: Koo is an officer of Defendant and has direct knowledge of the facts surrounding Plaintiff’s claims as well as the claims made in the Related case. (Decl. of Hong ¶12). Further, by Defendant’s admission, “all of the people that were involved in the events and circumstances alleged in Plaintiff’s action are no longer Defendant’s current employees.” (Decl. of Hong ¶5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff produced evidence from Heo’s testimony that he does not have personal knowledge of the questions presented in the Notice of Deposition, such as “[a]ny and all direct communications between Plaintiff and Bonhak Koo.” (Decl. of Hong ¶9, Exh. C at pgs. 20, 49, 50.)

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450 and orders Defendant’s PMK, Bonhak Koo, to appear for deposition and produce responsive documents in 7 days.

C.C.P. §2023.030(a) provides that a 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.”

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s counsel’s statement that producing Heo as Defendant’s PMK for deposition would be “meaningless” is demonstrative of Defendants continued abuse of the discovery process, while Koo was available for deposition. (Motion, pg. 11.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares his hourly fees are $450 per hour, and he spent 8 hours in preparation of the deposition, approximately 3 hours at the deposition, $2,106 in court reporter fees, $800 in interpreter fees, 3 hours in drafting this Motion, and anticipates another 2 hours in review of Defendant’s opposition to the Motion and reply and to appear/argue the Motion. (Decl. of Hong ¶16.) Plaintiff requests the total amount of $10,106 in sanctions against Defendant and their counsel, Ms. Karen Jung, jointly and severally. (Decl. of Hong ¶16).

Plaintiff’s notice of the instant motion fails to provide notice to Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of the amount of the requested sanctions, and that sanctions are requested against them jointly and severally. Accordingly, the Court declines to award Plaintiff sanctions.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata as to Plaintiffs’ reply on September 29, 2023, because Plaintiffs inadvertently, failed to attach the exhibits to their original reply and remove highlights from the text.