Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV35638, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35638    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel further discovery responses is GRANTED Plaintiff, who is representing herself after her counsel’s motion to be relieved was granted on 10/3/2024, is sanctioned $1,400 payable within 30 days.

On 11/9/2022, Plaintiff Iris Au (Plaintiff) filed suit against Enzo Zelocchi, Kenneth Childs (Childs), and David Do, alleging: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) attempted extortion; (3) aiding and abetting attempted extortion; (4) false light; and (5) defamation per se. 

On 10/9/2024, Defendant Kenneth Childs (Defendant) moved to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to his: (1) Form Interrogatories; (2) Requests for Admission (RFAs); and (3) Requests for Production (RFPs).

The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to his (1) Form Interrogatories; (2) Requests for Admission (RFAs); and (3) Requests for Production (RFPs). Defendant explains:

On June 6, 2024, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admission, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond to this discovery by its initial due date.

…

It was obvious at this point Plaintiff has abandoned her case. However, instead of simply withdrawing as counsel, on August 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel (not Plaintiff) served a single unverified objection and privilege claim (with no documents and no privilege log) in response to all of the June 6, 2024, discovery; then immediately thereafter filed a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel citing among other reasons lack of communication with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel’s unopposed Motion was granted by this Court on October 3, 2024.

            (Motion, 2: 6-18.)

The following single objection was used for all Requests for Admission, all Requests for Production, all Form Interrogatories (even 2.1 “State your name”) and all Special Interrogatories:

Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. This interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Responding Party objects on the ground that the interrogatory calls for an expert opinion prematurely, in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2034.210, 2034.220, and 2034.270. This request violates the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. Code of Civi. Proc., §§ 2018.020; 2018.030.

            Plaintiff’s responses are clearly deficient. The Court takes Plaintiff’s non-opposition to be a concession to Defendant’s motion on the merits.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is granted. Plaintiff, who is representing herself after her counsel’s motion to be relieved was granted on 10/3/2024, is sanctioned $1,400.00. ($350/hr x 4.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 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.