Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case 22AHCV00606 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00606, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00606 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: May 4, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: ZIMING HE, an individual, v. WING HO, an individual.

CASE NO.: 22AHCV00606

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Wing Ho

RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.

SERVICE: Filed February 22, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant moves to compel further responses to his requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Ziming He’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Wing Ho (“Defendant”) breached a contract where Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $211,172.74 to build an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 21, 2023 alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Defendant’s requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories within 30 days of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel further responses to his requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Defendant provides he served Plaintiff with discovery requests on December 12, 2022. (Ryan Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant provides Plaintiff served deficient responses on January 5, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Request for the Production of Documents

Defendant served 78 requests to produce documents.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a), provides: “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: [¶] (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. [¶] (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. [¶] (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”

To each discovery request, Plaintiff responded with the same language: “OBJECTION ON ALL, The requests are unduly burdensome and or vague, ambiguous, or unintelligible Sometimes (sic).” Plaintiff’s blanket and boilerplate objections are not code-complaint responses.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for the production of documents.

Special Interrogatories

Special Interrogatory No. 2: IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any and all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph BC-1 of YOUR COMPLAINT that Defendant Wing Ho agreed to pay $211,172.74 for Plaintiff Zing He to build ADU on the land of Existing property."

Special Interrogatory No. 5: IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any and all facts that support YOUR contention in BC-2 of YOUR COMPLAINT that on or about July 8, 2022 defendant breached the agreement by "illegally breach contract for termination."

Special Interrogatory No. 12: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in paragraph BC-4 of YOUR COMPLAINT that Plaintiff suffered damages legally (proximately) caused by defendant's breach of the agreement as follows "$73,910.46 anticipated profit loss."

Plaintiff provides brief responses to special interrogatories numbers 2 and 5 and objects to special interrogatories number 12. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories numbers 2, 5, and 12.

Form Interrogatories

In response to Defendant's form interrogatories Plaintiff served deficient responses. Plaintiff either failed to provide any responses to some interrogatories or simply responded with “PRIVILEGE” to other interrogatories. Plaintiff’s responses are deficient.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories. To the extent that Plaintiff claims that the sought-after discovery is privileged, Plaintiff may submit a privilege log.

Sanctions

Defendant also requests sanctions for the present motion. However, because Plaintiff did not respond to the motions to compel further responses, the court denies sanctions at this time.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide code complaint further responses without objections to Defendant’s requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories within 30 days’ notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated: May 4, 2023 ___________________________________

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court