Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV25247, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25247    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff David Truong (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Minh Hang Thi Nguyen (“Defendant”) to serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories (the “Form Interrogatories”) and to compel Defendant to identify and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories which have not yet been produced.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as follows.  Within 30 days, Defendant shall provide complete responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1, including (i) responses for each RFA providing the information requested in subdivisions (c) and (d) of the Form Interrogatory; and (ii) a proper response to subparts 12-25, 27-29, and 31-32.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of  $2,640.00. Defendant will pay that amount directly to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on August 4, 2022. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on December 12, 2022. The FAC states claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) fraud by concealment; (3) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; (4) civil conspiracy; (5) conversion; (6) unfair business practices; (7) partition by sale; and (8) accounting. Each cause of action is raised against Defendant Nguyen, as well as various combinations of other defendants.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff served the Form Interrogatories on Defendant. On June 16, 2023, Defendant served the responses at issue in this motion. From July 20, 2023 to August 14, 2023, the parties met and conferred over the adequacy of the responses, but no supplemental responses have been filed.

Plaintiff filed this motion on August 29, 2023. Defendant filed no opposition. 

Legal Standard

CCP § 2017.010

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

CCP § 2031.220

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

CCP § 2031.230

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

CCP § 2031.310

(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

          (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

          (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

… (h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

          The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)  Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)    

“Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.”  (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 148 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

Discussion

This motion is unopposed. Plaintiff’s positions are set forth in his memorandum of points and authorities and separate statement. The Court rules as follows on the discovery requests:

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1: Defendant shall respond to subparts (c) and (d) for each request for admission.  Also, Defendant must provide proper responses to subparts 12-25, 27 through 29 and 31-32.  These answers are so brief and cryptic that they barely do anything other than restate the denial.

As Plaintiff has not made a case for why Defendant is required to produce the documents he identifies, the Court denies that request.

Sanctions

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, but reduces the hours anticipated to be spent on drafting a reply and preparing for and appearing at the hearing from 3.5 to .1 because no opposition was filed. The Court finds Pamela Tahim Thakur’s hourly rate of $400.00 to be reasonable based on her 18 years of legal experience. The Court grants a total of 6.6 hours, for a total of $2,640.00.