Judge Frank M. Tavelman, Case Number: 24STCV0044, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument. For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative. Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

FEBRUARY 5, 2025

(Continued from January 31, 2025)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24STCV00744

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

This matter was originally set for January 31, 2025, and continued to February 5, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff requested argument the at the hearing, but failed to notify opposing counsel of the argument request pursuant to the instructions on the Court’s Tentative Ruling. The matter continued to February 5, 2025 for argument. Plaintiff was to give notice.

Christina & Gene Chung Ching (Plaintiffs) bring this action against Obsidian Development, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was hired to construct a quadraplex on a property they own. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant deficiently constructed the building in violation of code and in breach of the parties’ contract.

On June 21, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the default which was entered on March 15, 2024.

Before the Court are two motions to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (FROG) Nos. 12.1, 16.1, and 17.1 and Special Interrogatories (SPROG) Nos. 1-29. On December 13, 2024 these motions came on for hearing. The Court had issued a tentative ruling on the motions, denying them on grounds that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient meet and confer efforts prior to brining the motions. After oral argument was received from both parties, the Court elected to continue the matters to January 31, 2024. The Court requested the parties meet and confer and that Defendant’s counsel make additional efforts to secure the discovery responses from the client. The Court further required Defendant’s counsel to provide a firm date by which supplemental responses would be served. The Court finally requested that if Plaintiffs still required the Court’s adjudication of the motions, they submit supplemental briefing as to what responses remained deficient.

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefings. The Court having considered reviewed the moving papers and Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing now issues the following ruling. As the previous tentative ruling was not incorporated into the Court’s December 13, 2024 Minute Order, its substance is incorporated into this ruling to the extent necessary.

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 the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

On August 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ served their Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on Defendant’s counsel via email. (Sagheb Decl. ¶ 4) On August 23, 2024, Defendant’s counsel reached out to inform Plaintiffs’ counsel that the discovery was mistakenly placed in his spam folder and thus he has only just become aware of it. (Sagheb Decl. ¶ 6.; Vance Decl. Exh. 1.) Defendant’s counsel requested an extension to September 27, 2024, which Plaintiffs’ counsel granted on August 29, 2024. (Id.)

On September 6, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed to inform that his client had been sick and he needed more time to get substantive responses. (Sagheb Decl. ¶ 7, Vance Decl. Exh. 1.) Defendant’s counsel requested an extension to October 6, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel responded thusly:

Tyler, we told you the last time that we would not offer any further extensions of time to respond. We will agree to this final extension on condition that you confirm Plaintiff’s deposition as currently scheduled on October 16, 2024.

On September 27, 2024, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs’ FROG and SPROG. (Sagheb Decls. at p. 49 & 21.) These responses consisted entirely of objections and were unverified. (Id.)

On September 29, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email addressing the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Sagheb Decl. ¶ 9; Vance Decl. Exh. 2.) On October 4, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded thusly:

As previously explained to you. I need more time. There are large number of discovery requests and we are working on compiling supplemental responses.

I served as much as I could substantively and used objections to preserve my client’s rights due to your refusal to grant any additional time. I will not be able to meet your short deadline, I am hoping to have responses to you by November 9. If you don’t find that acceptable. Go file your motion. You have been nothing but unprofessional in this matter, and to be clear. I nor my client are refusing to respond but have simply requested additional time.

You served 60 RFAs, 69 RFPs, Form Rogs, and 29 Special Rogs. This is being served on an entity for a transaction that happened over 3 years ago. Your requests are broad and burdensome and we are doing our best to get you as much information as possible.

We take exception to your name-calling as well as your cavalier and incorrect attitude towards a motion to compel.

First, we absolutely did and literally so. All that we requested was that you confirm that the deposition of your client would go forward as scheduled on October 16, 2024. You neither responded to our request for confirmation nor set forth any other date on which your client would appear for deposition.

Second, as you know, we only have 45 days to bring that motion. Giving you until November 9, which is a Saturday, would put us at the cusp of being required to file a motion if you do not serve supplemental responses.

Third, we are not required to give you any extension at all. The code is quite clear as to when your responses are due and when motions must be filed.

Fourth, we see requests for extensions from your client as nothing but further delay and in this case you are requesting not only delay but in a fashion that prejudices our clients’ rights to bring the necessary motions. We cannot give you until November 9. In fact, we were very generous of you until October 11 in view of the fact that your client’s deposition is set for October 16.

Without stooping to your level of name-calling, you should review your own communications to gauge your own level of professionalism and civility.

We will contact the court to determine whether an IDC is necessary in this matter and if not then we will proceed with the motion, as you have requested.

On October 4, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded to the above by expressing his willingness to extend an open-ended Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a motion to compel. (Vance Decl. Exh. 2.)

After the December 13 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel Chiao (Chiao) reached out to Defendant’s counsel Vance (Vance) to confirm a solid date for Defendant’s production. (Chiao Supp. Decl. Exh. B.) In this email, Chiao asks if Vance could produce the information prior to the two weeks he estimated at the hearing, stating “I was wondering if that was possible in light of the fact that Plaintiffs' discovery was served approximately 123 days ago as of today, and you mentioned in your emails and oppositions that you have been continuously working on providing Plaintiffs with responses.” (Id.) Chiao states that her interest in making this request, “…stems from the Court's comment that if we can resolve our discovery issues prior to the continued hearing date of January 31, 2025, that we can then take the motions off-calendar.” (Id.) Chiao also requested that she be served with any documents moving forward, in addition to other Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.)

Vance replied to this email stating he would ensure Chiao would be served moving forward and provided a deadline of January 13, 2025. (Chiao Supp. Decl. Exh. B.) Vance’s email included some settlement discussions which have been redacted in Plaintiff’s supplemental submissions. (Id.)

On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel Sagheb (Sagheb) emailed Defendant’s counsel Vance. (Sagheb Supp. Decl. Exh. A.) In this email Sagheb accuses Vance of intentionally selecting January 13, 2025 as the date for production because it coincided with the date of the deposition of Defendant’s owner David Mirafati. (Id.) Sagheb states that Vance chose this date knowing that it would prevent Plaintiff’s counsel from reviewing the production prior to the deposition. (Id.) Sagheb then requests the documents be produced no later than January 10, 2024. (Id.) Sagheb’s email continues for some time about her frustrations with Vance’s alleged refusal to respond to discovery. (Id.) Sagheb then accuses Vance of including settlement discussions in his reply to Chiao as a means of preventing the email exchange from being properly included as evidence of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts. (Id.)

On January 20, 2025, seven days after his provided deadline, Vance served supplemental responses. (Sagheb Decl. Exhs. B-C.)

Beginning with the FROG, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief incorrectly states that their initial motion sought to compel further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1-12.5. Plaintiffs’ initial motion only sought to compel further responses to 12.1. Regardless, the Court agrees that Defendant’s supplemental response of “No” appears to be a patently insufficient response to FROG No. 12.1 which asks that Defendant to identify any witnesses to the incident. The same can be said of the supplemental response to FROG No. 16.1.

FROG No. 17.1 asks Defendant to identify the information and documents upon which their denial of Plaintiffs’ RFA are based. Plaintiffs initially moved to compel further response arguing that Defendant refused to identify any documents in support of their denial of RFA Nos. 2,3, and 3-60. Defendant’s supplemental response is unchanged from their initial responses, although Defendant has now copy and pasted the same response to each of the RFA with no explanation as to why. Defendant’s opposition to the original motions made no argument that these responses were sufficient, and instead made very clear that they were placeholder until such time as actual responses could be produced.

As concerns SPROG Nos. 1-29, it appears that Defendant did render supplemental responses which differed from their initial responses. Plaintiffs maintain that each of these responses are deficient for a number of reasons. Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing includes no separate statement as to the supplemental responses, instead opting to include a brief one to two sentence argument as to why each response is deficient. The Court finds issuing a substantive ruling on these responses in the absence of a separate statement would be both arduous and procedurally improper (CRC 3.1345). Having failed to sufficiently comply with CRC 3.1345, the motion is denied as to SPROG 1-29 without prejudice.

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, 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. (C.C.P. § 2030.300.) Substantial justification means a justification that is well grounded in both law and fact. (Doe v. U.S. Swimming Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.)

As for sanctions, typically a moving party is entitled to sanctions for a motion to compel. In this instance, the Court does not believe that interaction between the parties shows sufficient good faith to award the sanctions requested. As such, the Court will limit the sanction award to the filing fee of $120 ($60 per motion).

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

Christina & Gene Chung Ching’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on February 5, 2025 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO FROG 12.1, 16.1 AND 17.1 IS GRANTED. THE MOTION IS DENIED AS TO 12.2 THROUGH 12.5 AS THOSE WERE NOT PART OF THE INITIAL MOTION WHICH WAS CONTINUED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPROG 1-29 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS NOT COMPLIANT WITH CRC 3.1345 (NO SEPARATE STATEMENT).

THE COURT AWARDS SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $120.00 TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

MP:	Christina & Gene Chung Ching (Plaintiffs)
RP:	Obsidian Development, LLC (Defendant)