Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00831, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20TRCV00831 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, September 8, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 9
PROCEEDINGS
David Shiokari, Jr., et al. v. Nobuko Shiokari, et al.
20TRCV00831
Kenneth Shiokari’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded to David Shiokari, Jr. and Request for Sanctions
Kenneth Shiokari’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded to Victoria Shiokari and Request for Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
Kenneth Shiokari’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded to David Shiokari, Jr. and Victoria Shiokari, and Requests for Sanctions are granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 12, 2020. Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint was filed on August 17, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiff David Shiokari, Jr. is the grandson of Defendant Nobaru Shiokari. Plaintiff Victoria Shiokari is David Shiokari, Jr.’s mother. (The Court notes that this Plaintiff is referred to as both Victoria Shiokari and Vicky Shiokari.) Defendants Kenneth and Stan Shiokari are Defendant Nobaru Shiokari’s sons, the brothers of David Shiokari, Sr., David Shiokari, Jr.’s father, and, thus, apparently David Shiokari, Jr.’s uncles. Defendants promised to provide health insurance for the family including all grandchildren until they reached the age of 26. Defendants failed to keep their promise. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Oral Contract; 2. IIED; 3. IIED; 4. Fraud; 5. False Promise. Defendants’ operative First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on August 9, 2022.
Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
Meet and Confer
Defendant set forth meet and confer declarations in substantial compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Decl., Patricia Cymerman).
Motions to Compel
On December 22, 2021, Defendant Kenneth Shiokari propounded Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) to David Shiokari, Jr. and Victoria Shiokari. On January 21, 2022, Plaintiffs served written responses which consisted simply of boilerplate and repetitive objections. Plaintiffs have failed to justify their objections. The Court notes that Plaintiffs failed to file any written oppositions to the motions.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further responses, without objections, within 10 days of this date.
Sanctions
Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted.
Sanctions are awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs David Shiokari, Jr. and Victoria Shiokari and Plaintiffs’ counsel in the total amount of $2,520.00. The hourly rate sought of $400 is a reasonable rate. The time allotted for preparation and appearance was 6 hours. Defendant was also awarded $120 in filing fees. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.