Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV12551, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12551    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 45


 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

HYUNG BAI LEE, an individual,

 

                             Plaintiff,

 

                              vs.

 

SBJS PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

 

                              Defendants.
Case No.: 23STCV12551

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed:  06/01/2023

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: N/A]

Trial Date: 08/18/2025 

 

Hearing Date:              September 18, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Hyung Bail Lee

Responding Party:      N/A - Unopposed

Motion:                      Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. The motion is GRANTED.

 

Background

            Hyung Bai Lee (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on June 1, 2023 alleging six causes of action against their former employer SBJS Properties, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that they were hired on January 1, 2007, and terminated on or about September 10, 2022. Plaintiff alleges during their employ with Defendant that Defendant failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay final wages upon termination.

            The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1 (the Motion).

Discussion

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4…(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the 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 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (CCP § 2031.300)

“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.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010)

 

Analysis

            On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery which included Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1. (Declaration of Elizabeth Votra, hereinafter, Votra Decl., ¶2.) On November 14, Defendant served unverified objections to each and every Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff contends that after receiving these objections and meeting and conferring, Defense counsel agreed to provide supplemental responses by January 26, 2024, however no supplemental responses for the Request for Production of Documents came. (Moving Papers, 2:22-23.)

            The moving papers contend Defendant’s unverified wall-to-wall objections are meritless and unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all, citing to Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.

            First, in order to challenge the merit of objections, Plaintiff would need to file a Motion to Compel Further, with a separate statement explaining why the objections lack merit. Second, if a party submits objections, the objections need not be verified. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656 [“The objections themselves do not require a verification in order to be preserved…The statutes reflect the recognition that objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party, making their verification unnecessary.”]

            However, the Court notes the objections were served six days past the 30-deadline to respond, with no evidence of an extension ever being granted to Defendant for the initial responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion shall be granted, and sanctions are warranted.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $500.00

·         Counsel spent 3 hours preparing the instant Motion

·         Counsel anticipated three hours drafting a reply and attending the hearing

·         Counsel incurred a $60.00 filing fee

·         Counsel requests a total of $3,060.00

Considering no opposition nor reply was filed, the Court will impose sanctions against Defendant and award them to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,560.00.

Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED. The Court will impose sanctions against Defendant and award them to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,560.00, due within ten days from the date of this order.

 

 

It is so ordered.


Dated: September 18, 2024 

 

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court