Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

AIR TIGER EXPRESS (USA), INC.;

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHAO-TIEN “STEPHEN” HUANG, ERIC WU, STRAIGHT FORWARDING, INC., a California Corporation;

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV30217

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Complaint Filed: 09/15/22

Trial Date: 09/23/24

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024

Moving Party: Defendant Chao-Tien “Stephen” Huang

Responding Party: Plaintiff Air Tiger Express (USA), INC.

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests

The court has considered the moving and opposition papers.

Defendant Chao-Tien “Stephen” Huang’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is MOOT because Plaintiff provided responses to the discovery.

Background

On September 15, 2022 Plaintiff Air Tiger Express (USA) Inc., filed their complaint against Defendants Chao-Tien Huang AKA Stephen Huang (“Huang”), Eric Wu (“Wu”), and Straight Forwarding, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging six causes of action: (1) Misappropriation of Trade secrets, Cal. Civ. Code §3426 et seq., (2) Trespass, (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty and Care, (5) Breach of Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code §502(c), (e)(1), and (6) Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 et seq. On June 4, 2023 Huang served Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff. On or about August 4, 2023 counsel for Defendant emailed Plaintiff counsel stating responses had not been received and responses and responsive documents were due, without objections by August 4, 2023. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the email from counsel for Defendant. As of the filing of this Motion, Air Tiger Express (USA) Inc. still has not provided responses to Request for Production, Set One, and this motion is necessary.

Legal Standard

If a party to whom requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2031.300(b)-(c).) CCP § 2031.300 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. The propounding party need not demonstrate good cause or satisfy a meet-and-confer requirement – all that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of requests for production of documents was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-04.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel responses from Plaintiff to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

Defendant establishes the following: On June 4, 2023, Defendant Chao-Tien “Stephen” Huang served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Gross Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) On August 4, 2023, Defendant’s counsel followed up with Plaintiff’s counsel by email regarding the discovery requests, which were due on August 4, 2023. (Id. at ¶3, Exh. 2.) On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant Huang with responses to Requests for Production, Set One. (Opp. p. 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff requests that this matter be taken off-calendar. (Id.)

The court finds that the instant Motion is MOOT because Plaintiff served discovery responses on March 13, 2024.

The court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One because it is MOOT.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests $1,614.15 in attorney’s fees and costs for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs for this motion. (Gross Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is $450 per hour and Defendant seeks to recover 2.15 hours for this motion and $161.65 in costs. (See id.)

Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the number of hours Defendant seeks to recover is unreasonable because Plaintiff did not file a reply and it accounts for an hour responding. This is a basic motion and the issues raised in the motion do not justify the amount Defendant seeks.

Plaintiff’s opposition, filed on March 14, 2024, notified the court that it had served responses and requested to take the matter off calendar. Defendant did not file a reply.

Since the Motion is MOOT and Defendant did not file a reply still seeking sanctions, sanctions are not warranted at this time.

The court therefore DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

It is so ordered.

Dated: March 26, 2024

_______________________

Rolf Treu

Judge of the Superior Court