Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC723015, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC723015 Hearing Date: October 21, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Interrogatory
Responses, Waive Objections, and Award Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Creditor Hollywood Garden, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Document Responses,
Waive Objections, and Award Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Creditor Hollywood Garden, LLC
Resp. Party: None
The Court GRANTS both discovery
motions. The Court GRANTS sanctions of $2,220.00 against Defendant/Debtor Ji
Li.
BACKGROUND:
On
September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Hollywood Garden, LLC filed its Complaint against
Ji Li and Yong Bai on causes of action relating to breach of contract and
fiduciary duty concerning a commercial property located at 6140 Hollywood
Boulevard.
This
case has since had a years-long procedural history, including the recent grants
of terminating sanctions and a multi-million-dollar default judgment against
Defendant/Debtor Ji Li after this party repeatedly refused to comply with the
Court’s Orders regarding matters involving discovery. Defendant/Debtor Ji Li is
currently appealing the default judgment, although as of October 4, 2022, this
party has defaulted on the appeal for failure to timely serve and file notice
as required by California Rules of Court rule 8.121.
On
September 15, 2022, Plaintiff/Creditor filed its Motion to Compel Interrogatory
Responses, Waive Objections and Award Sanctions. With this motion,
Plaintiff/Creditor concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and
Authorities; (2) Declaration of Bryan D. Sampson; (3) Declaration of David R.
Fisher; (4) Exhibit List; and (5) Proposed Order.
Also
on September 15, 2022, Plaintiff/Creditor filed its Motion to Compel Document
Responses, Waive Objections and Award Sanctions. With this motion,
Plaintiff/Creditor concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
(2) Declaration of Bryan D. Sampson; (3) Declaration of David R. Fisher; (4)
Exhibit List; and (5) Proposed Order.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Motion to Compel Interrogatories
A. Legal
Standard
“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by
propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be
answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (a).)
“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party
to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the
response to them on the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.
(a).)
“If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a)
“The party to whom the
interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce
writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the
interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
. . . .
(b) “The
party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response
to the interrogatories.
(c)
“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 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., § 2030.290, subds. (a–c).)
B. Discussion
1. Discovery
Request
On June 29, Plaintiff/Creditor
served its first set of post-judgment written discovery on Defendant/Debtor,
including special interrogatories. Plaintiff/Creditor alleges: (1) that this
was done because Defendant/Debtor has not paid the default judgment and has not
posted a bond to stay enforcement despite appealing the case; and (2) that
Defendant/Debtor has, as before, failed to respond to this discovery request.
This motion is unopposed. The Court
finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order that compels responses to the
interrogatories. Plaintiff properly served its discovery requests, the time to
respond has expired, and Defendant has failed to provide a timely response.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Interrogatory Responses, Waive Objections and Award Sanctions.
Responses to the propounded interrogatories shall be due in 14 days.
2. Sanctions
For this motion, Plaintiff/Creditor
seeks monetary sanctions of $2,510.00 against Defendant/Debtor. This consists
of $2,450 in attorney’s fees (7 hours of work at $350 per hour) and $60 in
costs.
While the prevailing party is
entitled to sanctions, the sanctions requested are unreasonably high. Counsel states that he has “practiced law for
over 30 years and [is] familiar with the
Los Angeles County Superior Court system.”
(Sampson Declaration, ¶9.) Yet counsel states that he has spent 4.4
hours to “Check local/courtroom rules (0.2); research post-judgment discovery
laws (0.4); draft notice of motion to compel (0.4); draft proposed order (0.4);
draft exhibit list and add exhibits (0.9); draft points and authorities (1.0);
draft declaration (0.6); edit pleadings (0.5).”
(Sampson Declaration, ¶ 13.) An
attorney with over 30 years of experience should already know the local rules
and post-judgment discovery laws. The
“points and authorities” that counsel said he spent 0.9 hours drafting contain boilerplate
law and were probably copied-and-pasted from previous MPA’s. Drafting an exhibit list and adding exhibits
(which counsel said took 0.9 hours) is
something that could be done by a legal secretary at a fraction of counsel’s
$350/hour billing rate. Similarly, the
Court does not feel that it is justified to charge $350/hour to “prepare, serve
and calendar notice of ruling.” (Sampson
Declaration, ¶ 13.)
The Court grants sanctions of
$1,050.00 (3 hours of attorney time @ $350/hour) plus $60.00 in fees, for a
total of $1,110.00.
II.
Motion to Compel Production of Documents
A. Legal
Standard
“Any party may obtain discovery . . .
by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land
or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession,
custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.010, subd. (a).)
“A party may demand that any other
party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the
demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the
possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (b).)
“Within 30 days after service of a
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the
demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party
making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)
“If a party to whom a demand…is directed
fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
(a)
“The party to whom the demand. . . is
directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product . . . .
(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…,
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., § 2031.300, subds. (a–c).)
B. Discussion
1.
Discovery Request
On June 29, Plaintiff/Creditor
served its first set of post-judgment written discovery on Defendant/Debtor,
including requests for production of documents. Plaintiff/Creditor alleges: (1)
that this was done because Defendant/Debtor has not paid the default judgment
and has not posted a bond to stay enforcement despite appealing the case; and
(2) that Defendant/Debtor has, as before, failed to respond to this discovery
request.
This motion is unopposed. The Court
finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order that compels responses to the
requests for document production. Plaintiff properly served its discovery
requests, the time to respond has expired, and Defendant has failed to provide
a timely response.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Document Responses, Waive Objections and Award Sanctions. Responses
to the requests for document production shall be due in 14 days.
2. Sanctions
For this motion, Plaintiff/Creditor
seeks monetary sanctions of $2,510.00 against Defendant/Debtor. This consists
of $2,450 in attorney’s fees (7 hours of work at $350 per hour) and $60 in
costs.
The Court notes
that this is virtually the same time as counsel says he spent for the previous
motion to compel interrogatories. (See supra, §I(B)(2).)
The Court grants sanctions of
$1,050.00 (3 hours of attorney time @ $350/hour) plus $60.00 in fees, for a
total of $1,110.00.
III.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS both discovery
motions. The Court GRANTS sanctions of $2,220.00 against Defendant/Debtor Ji Li.