Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC714907, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714907    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is GRANTED. Defendant and counsel are sanctioned, jointly and severally, $1,050, payable within 60 days of entry of this order.

On 12/4/2019, Plaintiff Hongkong Zhengfang International Trade Co., Ltd. filed suit against Guangyu Zhao, Bowei Zhang, JZ USA Group., Inc., Kevin Qu, Gua Investment, Inc., Qiang Hua Spartan Auto Collection, United Auto Finance LLC, Lexury Auto Collection, LLC, and Yin Fei Hu aka Michael Y. Hu, alleging: (1) conspiracy; (2) fraud and deceit; (3) conversion; (4) common count; (5) breach of sales agreement; (6) intentional interference with contractual relationship; and (7) unjust enrichment.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Guangyu Zhao (Defendant) to provide further responses to its Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to further responses because Defendant responded to each interrogatory with boilerplate objections.

            The Court agrees that further responses are warranted.

            As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s opposition is procedurally defective in that it is not accompanied by a response to the separate statement.

Second, in opposition, Defendant vaguely argues that he “agreed to supplemental certain responses and such responses were provided.” (Opp., 7: 24-25.) However, Defendant does not indicate which interrogatories were supplemented, or what response was provided. As such, the Court has absolutely no means to determine whether or not the responses are adequate for the corresponding interrogatory. Moreover, in reply, Plaintiff argues that no supplemental responses to any special interrogatory have been provided at all, and that Defendant’s counsel submitted a knowingly false declaration. The Court is greatly concerned if this is the case.

 Third, even a cursory review of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories belies Defendant’s claim that “[he] has already fully and completely responded to each of the interrogatories at issue. (Opp., 6: 26-28.)

 For example, Special Interrogatory No.1 seeks all facts to support Defendant’s first affirmative defense. Defendant provides no substantive response, and asserts a number of objections including that the request is vague and unduly oppressive. Defendant repeats the same boiler-plate objections to each and every interrogatory. As such, there is no basis for Defendant to contend that he has fully and completely responded to discovery, especially when the discovery requests relate to his own affirmative defenses. This conduct clearly smacks of bad-faith discovery abuse.

While Defendant argues in opposition that Plaintiff has not shown cause to exceed the 35 interrogatory-limit, Defendant has not moved for a protective order from these requests, and his lackluster opposition to Plaintiff’s motion should not be rewarded by preemptively limiting the discovery requests propounded.

Defendant’s conduct is not well-taken. Defendant and counsel are sanctioned, jointly and severally, $1,050. ($350/hr x 3 hrs.) Sanctions are payable within 60 days of entry of this order. 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is granted. Defendant and counsel are sanctioned, jointly and severally, $1,050.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   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. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.