Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 23STCV09835, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FILED BY DEFENDANTS PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., DANIEL KIM, AND COMPASS CALIFORNIA, INC.

Plaintiff must serve verified responses without objections within 15 days after the date of this order. Plaintiff must also produce all responsive documents within 15 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for failure to disclose, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges that in June 2020, he entered into a residential purchase agreement with Defendants to purchase a property at 1028 South Wilton Place, Los Angeles, California 90019. Defendants did not disclose at the time of the sale that (1) the garage converted into a living unit did not pass inspections by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (“LADBS”), (2) repairs of the main residence after fire damage did not pass LADBS inspections, and (3) the value of the property was substantially less than the price he offered and paid due to the defects Defendants failed to disclose.

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff Yoan Koh filed his Complaint against Defendants In S. Park, John H. Lee, and Pacific Unition International, Inc. dba Compass Real Estate, Daniel Kim, and Compass California, Inc.

On November 30, 2023, Defendants Pacific Union International, Inc., Daniel Kim, and Compass, California, Inc. (Movants) filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Production, set one.

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., section 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., section 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 2031.200(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 are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to requests for production unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.300(c).

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.

Here, Movants’ counsel testifies that she propounded requests for written discovery on Plaintiff on July 28, 2023. (Albanese Decl., ¶4.) The responses were due on August 29. 2023. (Id., ¶5.) Movants granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension to September 19, 2023. (Id., ¶6.) After receiving no responses, Movants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to grant another extension. (Id., ¶7.) In November 2023, after receiving no responses, Movants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to grant a final extension. (Id., ¶8.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶9.)