Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC05586, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05586    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 26

Kawakami v. Lee, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Plaintiff Insook Kim Kawakami’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS JAMES JOUNG HYEN LEE AND HYEN UK LEE ARE TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $100.00 TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Insook Kim Kawakami’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Insook Kim Kawakami (“Plaintiff”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendants James Joung Hyen Lee and Hyen Uk Lee (“Defendants”). (Motion, Kawakami Decl., Exh. 1.) Despite a meet-and-confer effort extending the deadline to serve verified responses without objections, Defendant has not served responses. (Id. at ¶¶5-6 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Sanctions on March 20, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Form Interrogatories, Set One

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290.) Based on Defendants’ failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling them to serve verified responses to the discovery requests without objections.

Defendants’ failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. While “[a] pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees as a discovery sanction, [] he can recover the ‘reasonable expenses’ he has ‘incurred,’ including photocopying, computer-assisted legal research, and other identifiable and allocable costs.”  (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1017.) Sanctions are awarded against Defendants in the amount of $100.00. (Motion, Kawakammi Decl., ¶7.)

Requests for Admission, Set One

Plaintiff provides no legal authority that allows the Court to compel initial responses to requests for admission. The Motion cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, which only pertains to interrogatories. Therefore, the request to compel responses to Requests for Admission, Set One and Request for Sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Insook Kim Kawakami’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS JAMES JOUNG HYEN LEE AND HYEN UK LEE ARE TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $100.00 TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Insook Kim Kawakami’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.