Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV28938, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28938    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motions to compel responses to requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories, sets one, are GRANTED.  Responses are due within 20 days.

            Sanctions are granted in the amount of $255 for each motion, payable within 60 days.

            On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff Mi Young Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Hannam Chain, USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (4) constructive eviction.

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories, sets one and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record.

Legal Standard

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even though no opposition to the motion was filed or where the requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On June 30, 2023, Defendant propounded the subject discovery on Plaintiff. (Nathanson Decls., ¶3, Exh. 1.) On August 10, 2023, defense counsel’s office sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting answers within 5 days. (Id. at ¶4, Exh. 2.) As of the date of filing the motions, no responses have been received. (Id. at ¶4.) Plaintiff has not opposed any of the motions.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $255 for each motion. (Nathanson Decls., ¶5.)

Dated: March 25, 2024

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.