Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Defendant Kennedy Wilson Westmoreland TIC, LLC (“KW”) served on plaintiff Vitu Chea (“Plaintiff Chea”) form interrogatories, set one, on November 1, 2023. (Van Der Wall Decl. ¶ 2.) After multiple extensions, responses were due on March 15, 2024. (Id. ¶ 6.) On March 15, 2024, responses were served, in which the document title, caption, and footer referred to Chea, but the substance of the document was for plaintiff Mohammad Fahad (“Fahad”). (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. 6.) KW avers responses have not been served to date. 

In opposition, Plaintiff Chea argues that this is actually a motion to compel further, because responses were served on March 15, 2024. 

In reply, KW argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel still refuses to acknowledge the error, and that no responses had been received on behalf of Plaintiff Chea. 

  

II. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES 

For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) 

The Court has reviewed the March 15, 2024 responses purportedly served for Plaintiff Chea. The reference to the responding party being Fahad is more than just mislabeling, but extends to the substance of the responses (ex: No. 2.1). Although Plaintiff Chea signed the verification to the form interrogatories, set one, the Court questions the validity of this verification. Considering Fahad’s name was bolded and obvious as the responding party on page 1, 2, and 3 of the responses, it is highly questionable as to whether the responses were actually reviewed prior to signing the verification. 

The entire situation is absurd and should not have come down to a motion. Upon being informed of the issue, the Court sees no reason why Plaintiffs’ counsel should not have immediately corrected the issue, instead of engaging in a procedural game. 

Accordingly, KW’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Chea is ordered to serve verified responses to KW’s form interrogatories, set one, within ten (10) days of this Order (CCP § 2030.290(a),(b).) 

 

III. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Plaintiff Chea did not successfully oppose this motion, and as the Court noted above, the issue should not have progressed to this point. 

KW seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,800 for 9 hours of attorney time at a rate of $200 per hour. A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) 

KW is awarded 4 hours at the requested rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $800 as attorney’s fees. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff Chea and his attorney of record. Plaintiff Chea and/or his counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to KW, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $800, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 5, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.