Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: VC067069, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: VC067069    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: C

Eric Hsing Shou Huang vs. Chyan-Wen Jan

Case No.: VC067069

Hearing Date: February 20, 2024

#7

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Eric Hsing Shou Huang’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Production of Documents is DENIED.

Opposing party to give notice.

Background

This action arises out of a business dispute concerning GBP, a large Los Angeles-based produce wholesaler owned by Defendants and Cross-Complainants Chyan-Wen Jan (“Jan”) and Ching Wen Chen (“Chen”) (35%), Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Eric Hsing Shou Huang (“Huang”) and Jenny Huei Ju Lee (“Lee”) (20%), and Cross-Defendants Ingram Liu (“Liu”) and Sophie Chang (“Chang”) (45%). GBP is managed by Liu and Chang, who also serve as the company’s directors and CEO and CFO, respectively.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Jan with the RPD Set 3. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 2.) The deadline for Defendant to respond to RPD Set 3 was April 10, 2023 (“Discovery Deadline”). (Hsu Decl., ¶ 2.) Since the Plaintiff did not received any response or production of documents under RPD Set 3 from Defendant by the Discovery Deadline, Plaintiff sent Defendant an email to follow up on April 13, 2023. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 3.) On April 13, 2023, Defendant asked for a 2-week extension to respond to RPD Set 3 which was granted by Plaintiff. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 4.) The first extension deadline for RPD Set 3 was set for April 27, 2023 (“1st Extension Deadline”). (Hsu Decl., ¶ 4.) The Plaintiff did not receive any responses from Defendant by the 1st Extension Deadline nor did Plaintiff’s counsel ask for another extension. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff followed up again on the status of RPD Set 3 on May 22, 2023. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 6.) On May 23, 2023, Defendant finally served their response to RPD Set 3. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 7.) Despite the extended time it took for Defendant to respond and serve the discovery responses, Plaintiff contends Defendant responded with general boilerplate objections to each and every one of the requests under RPD Set 3. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred over the phone on August 10, 2023. On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff followed up with Defendant to see if they were done meeting and conferring on the motion to compel. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant asked for a final meet and confer letter. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 9.) On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter per agreement and asked the Defendant to provide supplemental responses by August 31, 2023, to avoid the filing of any motion. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 9.) As of the date of filing this motion on September 5, 2023, no responses have been received from Defendant. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 10.)

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).) 

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the motion has been timely filed. On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that if Plaintiff chooses to file a motion to compel for RPD Set 3, then Defendant would be agreeable to the filing of such motion and an order shortening time. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 8.) On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff followed up with Defendant to see if they were done meet and conferring on the motion to compel. Defendant asked for a final meet and confer letter. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 9.) On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter per agreement and asked the Defendant to provide supplemental responses by August 31, 2023, to avoid the filing of any motion. (Hsu Decl., ¶ 9.)

In Opposition, Defendant states that when he provided responses on May 23, 2023, he expected to receive a meet and confer correspondence within the 45-day period, if Plaintiff had any issues or sought supplementation of the responses. However, 45 days from May 23, 2023 would have been July 7, 2023. Defendant never received a meet and confer correspondence during this period, nor any request for an extension. (Yu Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant contends Plaintiff’s counsel never asked for an extension on his motion deadline. (Yu Decl., ¶ 9.)  Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion filed on September 5, 2023 was untimely. 

The Court is persuaded that there has not been written correspondence that extended the 45-day period to file the motion to compel further responses pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).  It follows that this motion is untimely.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.