Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV33843, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33843    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 10, 2022, various borrowers (Plaintiffs) initiated this action against Defendant Bank of Hope, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (3) negligence, (4) declaratory relief, and (5) unfair competition.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant orchestrated pretextual defaults on multiple loans in order to cause the borrowers to incur millions of dollars in interest and thereby inflate the value of the loans. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The loans stem from a decades-old relationship that businessman Joseph Ghim (Kim) had with Defendant wherein Mr. Ghim would borrow money for financing various properties. (Id., ¶ 11.) Mr. Ghim’s family also worked with Defendant, and over the years, the Kim family built up a portfolio of over $35 million in loans from Defendant secured by over $130 million in real property. (Id., ¶¶ 12-13.) Mr. Ghim passed away in 2020, survived by his spouse, Helen Kim, and children, including daughter Amy Kim. (Id., ¶ 16.) The Plaintiffs are Helen Kim as administrator of Mr. Ghim’s estate, along with various entities formed by Mr. Ghim to hold the investment properties. (Id., ¶ 14.)

            On May 2, 2025, Defendant filed the instant six motions to compel further responses from the Plaintiffs as to requests for production. The motions are substantively identical. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Watson Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant’s motion and separate statement sufficiently set forth good cause for the RFPs. Plaintiffs’ responses did not constitute a valid statement of compliance or inability to comply. A statement of compliance “shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A statement of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

            Merely referencing some bates numbers of a prior production does not constitute a valid response. The referenced documents are also nonresponsive or incomplete. Thus, further responses are warranted. Sanctions are also warranted, as Plaintiffs provide no substantial justification for their deficient responses. However, the requested amount is excessive given the simplicity and duplicative nature of the motions. (See Watson Decl. ¶¶ 33-36.) The Court awards $2,760, representing 6 hours at a rate of $400 per hour, plus $360 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Plaintiffs Midtown Investments, Inc.; B.W. Midwilshire Plaza Hotel, Inc.; Eun 3819 Enterprise, Inc.; New Hampshire Apartment, Inc.; 401 South Hoover Property, Inc.; and Wilshire Suite Hotel, Inc. shall provide further responses to the subject discovery within 20 days of this order.

            The Court sanctions Plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,760, to be paid within 30 days of this order.