Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1165336, Date: 2022-07-21 Tentative Ruling
1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories
3. Motion to Compel Production
4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Plaintiff John Yub Choy’s unopposed motion to compel defendant Hugh Rhee to provide verified responses without objection to plaintiff Choy’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and to deem Request for Admissions, Set One as admitted is GRANTED.
Form Interrogatories, Set One:
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on December 17, 2021. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
No response to the discovery request was received. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel who stated that he did not receive any discovery requests from Plaintiff and requested that the discovery requests be emailed to him. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Form Interrogatories to Defendant’s counsel and offered an extension until February 17, 2022 to respond to the Form Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff granted two additional extensions to Defendant to respond to the Form Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) However, to date, Plaintiff has not received any response to the Form Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.)
Based on the foregoing, the request to compel response to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.
Special Interrogatories, Set One:
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on December 17, 2021. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
No response to the discovery request was received. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel who stated that he did not receive any discovery requests from Plaintiff and requested that the discovery requests be emailed to him. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Special Interrogatories to Defendant’s counsel and offered an extension until February 17, 2022, to respond to the Special Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.)
Thereafter, Plaintiff granted two additional extensions to Defendant to respond to the Special Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) However, to date, Plaintiff has not received any response to the Special Interrogatories. (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.)
Based on the foregoing, the request to compel response to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.
Request for Production of Documents, Set One:
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b), provides, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Production, Set One, on December 17, 2021. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
No response to the discovery request was received. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel who stated that he did not receive any discovery requests from Plaintiff and requested that the discovery requests be emailed to him. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Request for Production to Defendant’s counsel and offered an extension until February 17, 2022, to respond to the Request for Production. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff granted two additional extensions to Defendant to respond to the Request for Production. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)
However, to date, Plaintiff has not received any response to the Request for Production. (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.)
Based on the foregoing, the request to compel response to Request for Production is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of this order.
Request for Admissions, Set One:
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.)”
Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Admission, Set One, on December 17, 2021. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
No response to the discovery request was received. (Kim Decl., ¶ 3.)
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel who stated that he did not receive any discovery requests from Plaintiff and requested that the discovery requests be emailed to him. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Request for Admissions to Defendant’s counsel and offered an extension until February 17, 2022, to respond to the Request for Admission. (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff granted two additional extensions to Defendant to respond to the Request for Admissions. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)
However, to date, Plaintiff has not received any response to the Request for Admission. (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.)
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for deemed admissions against Defendant.
The court orders that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions does not comply with section 2023.040 which provides in pertinent part that: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”
Although the Motion is accompanied by a declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Jamie Kim, the declaration does not set forth “facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”
Therefore, the request for sanctions fails to comply with section 2023.040. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Future hearing dates
10/14/22 – MSC
11/14/22 – Jury Trial