Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV18508, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18508    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Eric Fullilove (“Fullilove”), Yumi Ryoo (“Ryoo”); Rick Juarez (“Juarez”) and PWS, Inc. (“PWS”) (collectively “Defendants”).  On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants.  The FAC alleges four causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Negligence, and (4) Fraud.

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant PWS’s discovery responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”)and Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”).  No opposition or reply has been filed.

Time to Respond

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260 subdivision (a), a party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days of service.  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.260 subdivision (a), a party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days of service.  However, these time limits are extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically.  (See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections including privilege or on the protection of work product.  (See CCP § 2031.300(a); see also CCP § 2030.290(a).) 

            Here, on September 29, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendant PWS the RPD and FROG at issue by electronic service.  (Biggins Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  Accordingly, PWS had until October 25, 2021 to timely respond.  However, the parties extended the time to respond to November 25, 2021.  (Biggins Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.)  On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant PWI’s counsel requesting the responses without objection by March 17, 2022.  (Biggins Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. C.)  “On 3-29-2022, (incomplete) responses by co-defendant Yumi Ryoo were received, prompting further meet and confer. It was indicated by defense counsel that a health issue with co-defendant Rick Juarez prevented them from contacting him. However, I responded expressing sympathy but noting that the health issues should not prevent PWS from producing responses (as with Yumi Ryoo). There was no further response by Defendant [PWS], except the Defendant [PWS] then propounded discovery on Plaintiff.”  (Biggins Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. D.) 

            In sum, Defendant PWS failed to timely respond to the FROG and RPD at issue.  Accordingly, as Defendant PWS’ responses are untimely, Defendant PWS’ has waived all objections.

Motions to Compel

Defendant PWS has failed to serve a response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents at issue.  Accordingly, Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang’s motion to compel Defendants PWS, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Defendant PWS, Inc. is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $2,310 against Defendant PWS to compensate Plaintiff for the time spent on the instant motion.  Specifically, Plaintiff states that the sanctions are to compensate Plaintiff for the 0.5 hours meeting and conferring, 1.75 for preparation of the motion, 0.75 hours for review of any opposition and attending the hearing at claimed billing rate of $750 per hour and filing fees of $60.  (Biggins Decl. ¶ 4.) 

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [request for production], 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 § 2031.300(c).)  Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant PWS’ failure to timely respond to the discovery request is an abuse of discovery.  (CCP § 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) 

However, the court finds that the total amount requested – $2,310.00 – is unreasonable in view of the totality of the circumstances, especially given that Defendant PWS did not file any opposition, and no reply was necessary.  The Court finds that $1,450.00 reasonably compensates Plaintiff for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.

            Defendant PWS, Inc. is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,450.00 to Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang’s motion to compel Defendants PWS, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED.

Defendant PWS, Inc. is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED AS MODIFIED.

            Defendant PWS, Inc. is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,450.00 to Plaintiff Dongsoo Chang by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. 

            Moving Party is to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED:  October 6, 2022                                                     _____________________________

                                                                       Elaine Lu

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court