Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV03159, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 24 causes of action arising out of alleged wrongful conduct that occurred in the course of a business relationship.

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One (the “RFP Motion”); (2) a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One (the “RFA Motion”); and (3) a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“the “SPROG Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). The Motions also request monetary sanctions for Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.310, a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 234-35.) To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

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. (CCP § 2031.230.) 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. (Id.) 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. (Id.)

Under CCP section 2030.300, 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 CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Responses to interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c).) If the responding party cannot furnish details, they should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) The responding party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under their control. (Id.)

Under CCP section 2033.290, subdivision (a), on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that either of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.230, subd. (a).) As to requests for admission: (1) if only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered; and (2) if an objection is made to request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (CCP § 2033.230, subds. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiffs served the discovery requests at issue in the Motions on June 29, 2023. (See Declaration of Christian T. Kim (“Kim Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.)[1] Defendant provided his belated responses on August 15, 2023. (Kim Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit 2.) Despite meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs and Defendant were unable to resolve the dispute over Defendant’s responses. (See Kim Decl. ¶¶ 5-19.)

Upon review of the Separate Statements filed in connection with the Motions, the Court agrees that Defendant’s responses are incomplete because they contain improper objections and do not include statements of ability to comply that conform with the statutory requirements set forth above. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motions. Defendant is ordered to provide further supplemental, code-compliant responses, and any necessary privilege log within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,955 in connection with each Motion. This amount represents: (1) 6.8 hours of attorney time drafting the moving papers billed at a rate of $350 per hour; 0.5 hours of attorney time revising the moving papers at a rate of $450 per hour; 0.5 hours of paralegal time preparing the filings; and (2) an anticipated five hours preparing the reply papers and attending the hearing billed at a rate of $450 per hour. (See Kim Decl. ¶¶ 21-26.)

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the total reasonable amount of $2,380, which represents 6.8 hours preparing the Motions collectively at a rate of $350 per hour. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)[2] Defendant is ordered to pay this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Motions are based on the same underlying facts.

[2] These amounts represent the hours billed by attorneys who worked on the Motions, the filing fees, and, with respect to the Baek Motion, the interpreter cancellation fee.