Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV07535, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV07535 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 45
HEW QUON, et
al. v. State farm general
Insurance company, et al.
motion to compel RESPONSES to Requests
for production, set one
Date of Hearing: January 7, 2025 Trial Date: None
set.
Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV07535
Moving
Party: Defendant State Farm
General Insurance Company
Responding
Parties: Plaintiffs Hew Quon, Wanda
Quon, David Quon, Mathew Quon-Chow and Victoria Quon-Chow
BACKGROUND
This case arises from an insurance claim made by Plaintiffs
Hew Quon, M.D., Wanda Quon, D.O., David Quon, M.D., Mathew Quon-Chow, and
Victoria Quon-Chow (collectively, Plaintiffs) resulting from water loss and
damage to an office building named “Quon Medical Center” (the Property), where
Plaintiffs operated their medical practice. (Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 14.)
The water damages to the Property was insured by Defendant State Farm General
Insurance Company (State Farm), and Plaintiffs contend that State Farm failed
to provide benefits due to Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶¶ 21, 26, 27, 29, 30.)
On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated the current action.
On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative second
amended complaint (SAC) against Defendants State Farm, Aaron Vuong (Vuong),
Dana Booker (Booker), Diana Montgomery (Montgomery), Ariyo Olojede (Olojede),
Denise Johnson (Johnson), and Sandra Savala (Savala), alleging causes of action
for: (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith & Fair Dealing – Bad Faith, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation –
Fraud, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (5) Negligence.
On June 12, 2024, State Farm filed the instant motion to
compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, set one (RFPDs).
No opposition was filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
1.
State Farm’s motion to compel responses
to RFPDs is GRANTED.
2.
State Farm’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED in the amount of $710.00.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party must respond to requests for production
of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260 (a).)
The propounding and responding parties may agree to extend the time for
response. (Id. § 2031.270(a).) If a party to whom requests for
production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the
requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Id.
§ 2031.300 (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections,
including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Id. §
2031.300 (a).)
There is no time limit for a motion to
compel responses to requests for production of documents other than the cut-off
on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Id. §§ 2024.020 (a),
2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to
compel responses to the discovery. (Id. § 2031.300; Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)¿¿¿
The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand
for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that
the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300
(a)(1)-(2).)
ANALYSIS
State Farm moves to compel Plaintiffs
to provide verified responses without objections to its RFPDs.
On September 13, 2023, State Farm served
its RFPDs upon Plaintiffs, which was also served with separate, written
discovery on behalf of Defendant Vuong. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 3.) After two
extensions, Plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before November 17, 2023. (Id.
¶ 4.) According to State Farm, Plaintiffs, on November 17, 2023, only
provided responses to the discovery served by Vuong and did not provide
responses to the discovery, including the RFPDs, that were served by State
Farm. (Id. ¶ 5.)
On both December 26, 2023 and January 8,
2024, State Farm’s counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of their failure to
respond, to which Plaintiffs’ counsel responded requesting an extension
February 22, 2024. (Id. ¶ 7.) State Farm agreed, and further agreed to
another extension to March 12, 2024 requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. ¶
8.) No responses were provided on March 12, 2024, and State Farm again advised
Plaintiffs’ counsel, on March 25, 2024 and April 4, 2024, of their failure to
respond to the discovery.
In the April 4, 2024 communication,
Plaintiffs’ attorney advised State Farm that Plaintiffs’ other counsel would no
longer represent Plaintiffs and that he would look into State Farm’s discovery
requests. (Id. ¶ 9.) With no responses provided, State Farm followed up
again on April 18, May 2, and May 14, 2024. In the May 14, 2024 communication,
Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that discovery would be responded to by May 28,
2024. (Id. ¶ 10.) According to State Farm, no responses have been given
as of the date of filing the instant motion. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ responses to State Farm’s
written discovery, including its RFPDs, were due on November 17, 2023, but
State Farm provided two extensions for Plaintiffs to respond. State Farm
followed up multiple times following the deadline of the last extension, and
Plaintiffs still did not provide the requested discovery, nor has provided the
discovery as of the date of filing the instant motion. The Court also notes
that Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.
Therefore, Plaintiffs is compelled to serve verified
responses to State Farm’s RFPDs, without objections.
Sanctions
When a
request for monetary sanctions is concurrently filed with a motion to compel responses,
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both
pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a
result of that conduct.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) Additionally, “If
a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court
shall impose that sanction unless it finds that one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)¿
As explained
above, Plaintiffs did not serve timely responses to State Farm’s written
discovery, even after two extensions and multiple follow-up emails. Plaintiffs
have also not filed an opposition to provide the Court with any substantial
justification as to why the responses were not timely given. Thus, sanctions
against Plaintiffs are appropriate.
State Farm
requests $1,035.00 in sanctions.
State Farm’s
counsel declares that his hourly rate is $325.00 per hour. (Batezel Decl., ¶
13.) The Court finds this hourly rate to be reasonable considering the hourly
rates of other attorneys in similar practice areas. Counsel also states that he
spent two hours drafting the instant motion and anticipates one hour to be
spent reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply. While the Court finds that
the amount spent in preparing the instant motion to be reasonable, because no
opposition has been filed, the Court will eliminate the amount spent reviewing
the opposition and drafting the reply.
Thus, the
Court will award two hours at $325.00 an hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee,
which equals $710.00.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, State Farm’s motion to compel
responses to RFPDs is GRANTED. State Farm’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in
the amount of $710.00.
HEW QUON, et
al. v. State farm general
Insurance company, et al.
motion to DEEM admitted requests
for admission, set one
Date of Hearing: January 7, 2025 Trial Date: None
set.
Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV07535
Moving
Party: Defendant Aaron Vuong
Responding
Parties: Plaintiffs Hew Quon, Wanda
Quon, David Quon, Mathew Quon-Chow and Victoria Quon-Chow
BACKGROUND
This case arises from an insurance claim made by Plaintiffs
Hew Quon, M.D., Wanda Quon, D.O., David Quon, M.D., Mathew Quon-Chow, and
Victoria Quon-Chow (collectively, Plaintiffs), resulting from water loss and
damage to an office building named “Quon Medical Center” (the Property), where
Plaintiffs operated their medical practice. (Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 14.)
The water damages to the Property was insured by Defendant State Farm General
Insurance Company (State Farm), and Plaintiffs contend that State Farm failed
to provide benefits due to Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶¶ 21, 26, 27, 29, 30.)
On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated the current action.
On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative second
amended complaint against Defendants State Farm, Aaron Vuong (Vuong), Dana
Booker (Booker), Diana Montgomery (Montgomery), Ariyo Olojede (Olojede), Denise
Johnson (Johnson), and Sandra Savala (Savala), alleging causes of action for:
(1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith
& Fair Dealing – Bad Faith, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation – Fraud, (4)
Negligent Misrepresentation, and (5) Negligence.
On June 20, 2024, Vuong filed the instant motion to deem
admitted Requests for Admission, set one (RFAs).
No opposition was filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
1.
Vuong’s motion to compel deem RFAs
admitted is GRANTED.
2.
Vuong’s request for sanctions is
GRANTED in the amount of $222.50.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Any party
may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the
action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified
matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A
request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the
parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) “Within 30 days after
service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed
shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a
copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250(a).)
If a party to
whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the
party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based
on privilege or the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).)
The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any
documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed
admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).)
The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made
serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)
ANALYSIS
Defendant
Vuong moves to deem admitted his RFAs that was served upon Plaintiffs.
On
September 13, 2023, Vuong served his written discovery, including the RFAs,
upon Plaintiffs. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 3.) After two extensions, Plaintiffs’
responses were due on or before November 17, 2023. (Id. ¶ 14.) On
November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served their responses to Vuong’s requested
discovery, including the RFAs, but the responses were not verified. According
to Vuong, as of the date of filing the instant motion, Plaintiffs have failed
to provide the verifications.
Because Plaintiffs filed to provide verifications with their responses
to Vuong’s RFAs, it is as if no responses were provided. (Appleton
v. Superior Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses
are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) Thus, because Plaintiffs have not
provided a timely Code-compliant response to the RFAs, Plaintiffs have waived any
objections. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition.
Therefore,
the Court GRANTS Vuong’s motion to deem admitted his RFAs that were served upon
Plaintiffs.
Sanctions
Code
of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides, in part: “It is
mandatory that the court impose a monetary . . . on the party or attorney, or
both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission
necessitated this motion.”
In accordance
with Code of Civil Procedure
section 2033.280, subdivision (c), sanctions are mandatory upon
Plaintiffs because she did not timely provide verified responses to Vuong’s
RFAs.
Vuong
requests $385.00 in sanctions.
Vuong’s
counsel declares that his hourly rate is $325.00 per hour. (Batezel Decl., ¶
7.) The Court finds this hourly rate to be reasonable considering the hourly
rates of other attorneys in similar practice areas. Counsel also states that he
spent 0.5 hour drafting the instant motion and anticipates 0.5 hour to be spent
reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply. While the Court finds that the
amount spent in preparing the instant motion to be reasonable, because no
opposition has been filed, the Court will eliminate the amount spent reviewing
the opposition and drafting the reply.
Thus, the
Court will award 0.5 hour at $325.00 an hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee, which
equals $222.50.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Vuong’s motion to compel deem RFAs
admitted is GRANTED. Vuong’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of
$222.50.