Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 23STCV03468, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Jo Bog Yoo to Requests for Production are GRANTED. Code compliant further responses are ordered within 30 days. Sanctions are DENED.

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand. (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

This court on June 8, 2023, granted Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s (Plaintiff) motion to compel responses to requests for production from Defendant Jo Bog Yoo (Defendant).On October 4, 2023, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the prior order, based on the failure to provide responses.

Defendant has since produced responses to the applicable requests — Requests No. 1–7 — on October 10, 2024. (Medvei Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) The requests sought Defendant’s written contracts for immigration consultant services, typewritten receipts for his customers, documents referring to his immigration consultant bond, documents referring to his advertisements, documents referring to his customer trust account, copies of documents provided to his customers, and documents referring to his customers. Defendant responded in each case that the request was not applicable to him or that he had no responsive documents because he has never conducted any immigration business as an immigration consultant. (Separate Statement.)[1]

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling 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. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

Defendant’s responses are compliant with the above. Defendant either states that the requests are “not applicable” to him, as with Requests No. 1 and 3, or that he has no responsive documents because he never ran an immigration consultant business, as with Requests No. 2 and 4–7. However, the “not applicable” responses are non-compliant because they contain no assurances as to the existence of the relevant documents, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230. Additionally, although Defendant states that he has no documents responsive to Requests No. 2 and 4–7, he grounds his responses in the qualification that he has never done any business as an immigration consultant, when these requests are not tied specifically to his work as an immigration consultant, but are rather directed to his business in general. Defendant cannot refuse to provide a straightforward response to discovery based only on repeated assertions that he is innocent of the allegations made against him.

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks $3,180.00 in sanctions, representing 7.5 hours of attorney work at $500 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Medvei Decl. ¶¶ 11–12.) Plaintiff also seeks an OSC hearing on terminating sanctions, in light of the present motion’s status as the third in a series against Defendant related to the same discovery requests. (Motion at pp. 7–8.)

[1] Plaintiff presents excerpts from Defendant’s website, which offers to assist clients in filling out their immigration forms. (Medvei Decl. Exh. 1.) “A person engages in the business or acts in the capacity of an immigration consultant when that person gives nonlegal assistance or advice on an immigration matter. That assistance or advice includes, but is not limited to . . . [c]ompleting a form provided by a federal or state agency but not advising a person as to their answers on those forms.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22441, subd. (a)(1).)