Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV00816, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 22CHCV00816    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 1/24/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Satini Boonlue and Mom Can Cook Thai., Inc. dba Mom Can Cook Thai Kitchen

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Saeko Eats, LLC dba Sen Noodle House

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant to produce supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ second set of Special Interrogatories, and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $22,610.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged breach of a non-compete agreement by Defendants.

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Satini Boonlue and Mom Can Cook Thai., Inc. dba Mom Can Cook Thai Kitchen (“MCCTK”) (collectively, “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Chris Roongfangarm, Kittirungruang, Saeko Eats, LLC dba Sen Noodle House (“Sen Noodle House”), Keith Kittirungruang, Kevin Kittirungruang, (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (4) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and (5) Intentional Misrepresentation. Subsequently, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on November 15, 2022.

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two (the “Motion.”) Subsequently, Sen Noodle House filed its Opposition on September 4, 2024, and Plaintiffs replied on September 10, 2024.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Incorrect Motion Title and Improperly Combined Motions

As a preliminary matter, there are two defects associated with the Motion.

First, the Court observes that the Motion’s title incorrectly states “Motion to Compel Responses,” whereas its contents seek relieves to “compel further” responses. The Court emphasizes that these are two distinct motions governed by separate code sections. Therefore, the title of the Motion should match the relief requested to avoid confusion and to ensure proper notice to the opposing party.

Here, despite the incorrect title of the Motion, the Notice of Motion cites the applicable Code of Civil Procedure sections that govern motions to compel further responses. Additionally, given that Defendant Sen Noodle House’s Opposition correctly addresses the issues, the Court deems that no prejudice was caused by the incorrect Motion title and will consider the Motion on its merits.

Second, Plaintiffs improperly combined and filed two motions as a single filing.

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.  (See Govt. Code § 70617(a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing); see also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) [“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”])

Because Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are two different discovery methods, this Court requires Plaintiffs to file the Motion to Compel Further Responses and Motion to Compel Further Productions separately and pay two filing fees. The improperly combined Motion has only one filing fee paid.

As a result, the Court will only considers one Motion, and the ruling herein applies only to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

B.     Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant Sen Noodle House served its verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on November 28, 2023. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), Plaintiffs had 45 days to file the a motion to compel further responses, setting the deadline at January 12, 2024. However, based on the parties’ agreed-upon extension to file the applicable motion by January 26, 2024. (Yeung Decl. ¶ 21), Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on January 24, 024.

Accordingly, the Court determines that the Motion is timely.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on December 27, 2023, she sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel regarding the deficiencies in the verified responses and demanded Defendant to cure the deficiencies by January 4, 2024. (Yeung Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. “10.”) On January 6, 2024, Defendants’ counsel responded and asked for additional time to amend the responses. (Id. ¶ 21.) Subsequently, on January 11, 2024, the parties had a meeting via zoom to discuss the deficiencies; however, the meeting was ended by Defendants’ counsel in the middle of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s explanation on the issue of relevance. (Id. ¶ 22.) Another meet and confer email was sent to Defendants’ counsel on January 12, 2024. (Id. ¶ 23, Ex. “13.”) Despite the efforts, the parties were unable to resolve the issues, and no further amended responses had been received from Defendant Sen Noodle House by the time of the filing of the Motion. (Id. ¶ 24.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts were sufficient.

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: ... (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories[.]” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

C.    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

A party may use interrogatories to request the identity and location of those with knowledge of discoverable matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010.) To show an interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information “is not the burden of [the party propounding interrogatories]. As a litigant, it is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,.541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 10-55, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a). They argue that the responses served by Sen Noodle House contained only boilerplate and meritless objections and there were no substantive or straightforward responses to each of the requests in the Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Yeung Decl. ¶ 18.)

These special interrogatories nos. in question include:

“10. State Sen Noodle House’s transaction count for the year of 2020.

11. State Sen Noodle House’s transaction count for the year of 2021.

12. State Sen Noodle House’s transaction count for the year of 2022.

13. State Sen Noodle House’s transaction count from January 1, 2023 through the date of

production.

14. State Sen Noodle House’s customer count for the year of 2020.

15. State Sen Noodle House’s customer count for the year of 2021.

16. State Sen Noodle House’s customer count for the year of 2022.

17. State Sen Noodle House’s customer count from January 1, 2023 through the date of

production.

18. State the number of paid employees of Sen Noodle House for the year of 2020.

19. State the number of paid employees of Sen Noodle House for the year of 2021.

20. State the number of paid employees of Sen Noodle House for the year of 2022.

21. State the number of paid employees of Sen Noodle House from January 1, 2023 through the date of production.

22. State the amount of sales tax Sen Noodle House paid to the State of California in the year of 2020.

23. State the amount of sales tax Sen Noodle House paid to the State of California in the year of 2021.

24. State the amount of sales tax Sen Noodle House paid to the State of California in the year of 2022.

25. State the amount of sales tax Sen Noodle House paid to the State of California from

January 1, 2023 through the date of production.

26. State the amount of Sen Noodle House’s total alcohol sales generated in the year of 2020.

27. State the amount of Sen Noodle House’s total alcohol sales generated in the year of 2021.

28. State the amount of Sen Noodle House’s total alcohol sales generated in the year of 2022.

28. [sic] State the amount of Sen Noodle House’s total alcohol sales generated from January 1, 2023 through the date of production.

29. State the name, telephone number, address, and type of any and all contract providers of Sen Noodle House from 2020 through the date of production.

30. State the name, telephone number, address, and type of any and all digital application

providers of Sen Noodle House from 2020 through the date of production.

31. State any and all advertisement plan of Sen Noodle House from 2020 through the date of production.

32. State the dollar amount of Sen Noodle House’s income that came from third party

delivery agents or websites including but not limited to Ubereats, DoorDash, Postmates, Grubhub, Yelp etc. for the year of 2020.

33. State the dollar amount of Sen Noodle House’s income that came from third party

delivery agents or websites including but not limited to Ubereats, DoorDash, Postmates,

Grubhub, Yelp etc. for the year of 2021.”

(Yeung Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. “1A.”)

In its Opposition, Sen Noodle House argues that it is not required to answer any discovery which requires defendants to create a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents which have been produced. (Opp’n. at p. 3.)

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, “[i]f the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.”  (Underlines added.)

Additionally, “[a]Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition,’ ‘See my pleading,’ or ‘See the financial statement.’ Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Deyo).)

            Here, Sen Noodle House’s verified responses, dated November 28, 2023, contains only uniformed objection. (Yeung Decl. Ex. “1A,” see generally Pl.’s Separate Statement.) Sen Noodle House argues that “all documents have been produced pursuant to meet and confer in lieu of amending responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Two and additional documents at issue have been produced via the Document Demand and a separate subpoena by Plaintiffs to Defendants, … from which the answer to the interrogatories may be ascertained[.]” (Def.’s Separate Statement, at p. 2.) However, its responses were devoid of any details or specificity as to which writings the answers may be derived for ascertained.

            Therefore, the Court finds Defendant Sen Noodle House’s responses failed to comply with the requirements mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, as well as principles set forth in case law, including those stated in Deyo, supra.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

D.    Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs also request the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $22, 610. (Mot. at p. 15.) The Court finds the requested amount, which represents the total for two improperly combined motions, to be excessive.

Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work in preparing the Motion is $900.00, calculated at a reasonable hourly rate of $300.00 for three hours reasonably spent.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, filed by Plaintiffs Satini Boonlue and Mom Can Cook Thai., Inc. dba Mom Can Cook Thai Kitchen, is GRANTED.

Defendant Saeko Eats, LLC dba Sen Noodle House is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within 20 days.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Saeko Eats, LLC dba Sen Noodle House and its attorney of record are ordered to pay $900.00 in sanction to Plaintiffs.

Moving party to give notice.