Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00860, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00860 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Estate of Run de Zhu, et al. v. Cherry Wong, et al.
2. Plaintiff Estate of Run de Zhu’s Motion to Compel Defendant Yinghui Zhu’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions;
3. Plaintiff Estate of Run de Zhu’s Motion to Compel Defendant Yinghui Zhu’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; and
4. Plaintiff Estate of Run de Zhu’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted by Defendant Yinghui Zhu, and Request for Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court summarily DENIES Plaintiff Estate of Run de Zhu’s motions to compel further responses as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendant Yinghui Zhu is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On August 12, 2022, plaintiffs Estate of Run de Zhu (Plaintiff), Mei Ai Ma, an individual, successor-in-interest to Run De Zhu, and personal representative of the Estate of Run De Zhu, and Yingjie Zhu, filed this action against defendants Cherry Wong, Raymond Wong, Yinghui Zhu (Yinghui), and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, false promise, constructive fraud, conversion, conspiracy, accounting, tort of another claim for attorney fees, violation of Penal Code § 496, negligence, financial elder abuse, restitution for unjust enrichment, quiet title, cancellation of instrument, declaratory relief, and imposition of resulting trust.
On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to written discovery requests and deem requests for admission admitted. The motions are unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), further provides that “[t]he 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 a 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:
(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.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), further provides that “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if:
(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.
(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d), further provides that, “[t]he 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, 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
The Court notes multiple problems with Plaintiff’s discovery motions. First, Plaintiff characterized these motions as motions to compel rather than what they really are, which are motions to compel further responses since the issue here is not the lack of responses but rather the assertion of improper objections. (Liberzon Decls., Ex. 2; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3), 2031.310, subd. (a)(3), 2033.290, subd. (a)(2).) Since these motions are really motions to compel further responses, Plaintiff was required to meet and confer before bringing them and to also provide separate statements for each motion. (Ibid., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2033.290, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subds. (a)(1)-(a)(3); Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136, fn. 9 (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop.) Plaintiff did not do so. (See Liberzon Decls., ¶ 10.) The lack of a separate statement by itself is sufficient grounds to deny the motions. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) This Court also requests parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference before bringing a motion to compel further responses, which Plaintiff did not do. (Dept. 6 Courtroom Information.)
Second, the Court lacks jurisdiction to even consider these motions. The time limit for a motion to compel further responses is 45 days from the date the verified responses are served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) Courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely motions to compel further responses other than to deny them. (See Sexton v. Superior Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (“the Legislature has explicitly stated that unless a party moves to compel further response within 45 days of the unsatisfactory response, he waives any right to compel a further response.” [internal citation omitted]); see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Halpern) (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 (court lacks jurisdiction to order further answers after 45 days).) The responses to these discovery requests were served electronically on December 8, 2023. (Liberzon Decls., ¶ 9.) The motions were filed on October 9, 2024. It has been well over 45 days since Yinghui served these responses.
Yinghui's responses to the discovery requests contained only objections, and thus, did not need to be verified by Yinghui, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.250, subd. (a), 2031.250, subd. (a), 2033.240, subd. (a).
The Court recognizes that relevant code sections state that the time limit for bringing a motion to compel further responses runs from the service of verified responses. There is no specific statute addressing the deadline to move to compel further responses when the responses contain only objections, as is the case here.
The closest that the appellate courts have come to addressing this issue is in the case of Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, in which the Court of Appeal (4th/3rd) dealt with the issue of the deadline to compel with respect to unverified "hybrid" responses, i.e., some consisting of only objections and some consisting of substantive responses.
In that matter, the court held that even though the motion itself concerned only the objections, the responses were nonetheless required to be verified, and the clock did not begin running until the verifications were served. The court stated, “[w]e can leave for another day the possibility of an ‘absurd result,’ as the trial court put it if there is no time limit on a motion to compel involving objections.” (Id. at 136.)
There is no question here, that Yinghui's responses consisting only of objections were not required to be verified. In facing the issue that the Court of Appeal declined to address, this Court, while not bound by any other trial court's decision, also finds that it would be an absurd result if there was no deadline for a motion to compel a response involving only objections. The legislature certainly could not have intended such an outcome in drafting the discovery statutes.
Accordingly, the Court finds that service of the unverified objections on December 8, 2023, triggered the 45-day deadline for Plaintiff to move to compel further responses, and Plaintiff’s motions are therefore untimely. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider these motions and summarily DENIES them.
CONCLUSION
The Court summarily DENIES Plaintiff Estate of Run de Zhu’s motions to compel further responses as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendant Yinghui Zhu is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.