Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 21STCV00787, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Sang Chun is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to the Special Interrogatories (Set One); Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) within 15 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $2,164.23 are imposed jointly and severally on Sang Chun and Chun’s attorney of record. Sanctions are payable within 15 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs allege that on October 2, 2012, Defendant Hana Financial, Inc. agreed to loan KPMA, LLC $697,102.47 secured by Plaintiffs’ residence in Northridge, California. Plaintiffs also personally guaranteed the debt. On October 18, 2012, KPMA wire transferred $697,102.47 to Hana Financial, Inc., fully satisfying KPMA’s obligations under the promissory note. Hana Financial then failed to release the deet of trust on Plaintiffs’ property despite satisfaction of the debt.

On February 26, 2021, Hana Financial answered and filed a Cross-Complaint against Sang and Sung Chun, Paul Park, and Vista Commercial Real Estate, Inc.

On July 10, 2023, Young Shim filed these motions to compel Sang Chun’s responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”).

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)\

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., section 030.290(a)) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.)

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) However, objections to interrogatories and demands for production are not required to be verified because “objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party.” (Blue Ridge Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 345.)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 provides that a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if no opposition was filed.

Shim’s counsel testifies that he propounded written discovery on Sang Chun on April 24 ,2023. (Ryan Decl., ¶4.) Thereafter, Sang Chun failed to serve responses or contact Shim’s counsel. (Id., ¶6.) On May 31, 2023, Shim’s counsel sent email communication to Sang Chun’s counsel demanding responses and requesting available dates for his deposition. (Id., ¶7.)

Shim also seeks sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., sections 2023,010 and 2023.030. Because Sang Chun’s responses were not timely served, the Court grants Shim’s request for sanctions. However, Shim’s request for sanctions is excessive. Because the motions were unopposed and substantially similar to each other, the Court awards a reduced amount of $2,164.23 for 4.5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $435 per hour and filing fees.