Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00003, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00003    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: C

KIMURA v. HARIO USA, INC.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00003

HEARING: 04/12/23

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

     I.        Defendant HARIO USA, INC.’s unopposed Application for Sanctions Re: Plaintiff KIMURA’s Failure to Adequately Respond to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

    II.        Defendant HARIO USA, INC.’s unopposed Application for Sanctions Re: Plaintiff KIMURA’s Failure to Adequately Respond to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

  III.        Defendant HARIO USA, INC.’s unopposed Application for Sanctions Re: Plaintiff KIMURA’s Failure to Adequately Respond to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

On December 29, 2022, this Court granted Defendant HARIO USA, INC.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Special Interrogatories; and Form Interrogatories. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions was denied without prejudice.

On January 30, 2023, this Court specially set Defendant’s 3 Motions for Sanctions for hearing.

The Court notes that Oppositions to Defendant’s Ex Parte Applications for Sanctions were filed and considered. The Ex Parte Oppositions argue that the Motions should not be granted on an ex parte basis and that Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to file substantive Oppositions after having had adequate notice. Plaintiff’s (Supplemental) Oppositions to the instant Motions were to be filed and served per Code in accordance with the new hearing date. As of April 10, 2023, no substantive Oppositions addressing the merits/substance of Defendant’s arguments have been filed/lodged with the Court.

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…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.” (CCP §2031.310(h).)

CCP § 2030.300(d) provides that, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id.)

Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Special Interrogatories; and Form Interrogatories was granted. Plaintiff failed to file substantive Oppositions to the instant Motions for Sanctions, therefore, the Court is unaware of any facts to determine that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Reasonable sanctions are warranted. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in part as follows. Plaintiff and their counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendant and its counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $2,066.15. ($500/hr. x 4 hrs.) ($66.15 filing fee) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.