Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV23754, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV23754    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cuckoo Rental America, Inc.’s six motions to compel Defendants Hosuk Yoon and Caresys, Inc. to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production are denied as moot.  Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Six discovery motions are presently before the Court.  Plaintiff Cuckoo Rental America, Inc. (“CKRA”) moves to compel Defendant Eric Hosuk Yoon (“Yoon”) to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories (General), and Requests for Production (“RFPs”).  CKRA also moves to compel Defendant Caresys, Inc. (“Caresys”) to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories (General), and RFPs. In connection with each of the six motions, CKRA requests an award of monetary sanction in the amount of $1,495.28, for a total sanctions request of $8,971.68.

Background

CKRA filed its complaint against Defendants Yoon and Caresys (collectively, “Defendants”) in this action on June 25, 2021.  The Court notes that, prior to the instant action, on March 29, 2021, Yoon and Caresys filed their initial complaint against CKRA and other named defendants in a separate action titled Eric Hosuk Yoon, et al. vs Cuckoo Homesys Co. Ltd., et al., LASC 21STCV11963 (“Lead Case”).  The Court deemed the instant action related to the Related Action on June 29, 2021. In December 2021, CKRA filed the six pending motions to compel further responses against Defendants, which were initially set for hearing in June and July 2022.  Prior to the hearings, the Court consolidated the motions on to a single date and requested the parties file a joint statement summarizing outstanding discovery disputes.  On August 19, 2022, the parties filed a joint statement. 

In the joint statement, CKRA asserts that only the requests for sanctions remain at issue while the motions to compel further responses are moot in light of Defendants having served further responses after the filing of the motions.  (Joint Statement, pg. 2.)  CKRA notes that on September 26, 2021, Defendants were served with discovery in the Lead Case and in the instant action and on January 10, 2022, a protective order was entered into in the instant action, but not in the Lead Case.  (Joint Statement, pg. 2.)  During the Lead Case’s March 28, 2022 hearing on a demurrer, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference in light of pending discovery motions, during which Caresy’s counsel asserted his failure to respond to discovery requests in the Lead Case was based on the lack of a protective order in that action, and thereafter, a protective order was entered in the Lead Case on April 7, 2022.  (Joint Statement, pg. 3.)  On May 23, 2022, Caresys served further responses to the discovery requests. The Court notes that in the Lead Case, also in December 2021, CKRA also moved to compel Yoon’s further responses to Form Interrogatories and RFPs, and on June 16, 2022, the Court ruled the motions moot in light of Yoon’s production, but awarded monetary sanctions requested by CKRA in the reduced amount of $3,098.30.  CKRA argues there was no substantial justification for Defendants’ “eight-month delay” in providing substantive responses to the Discovery Requests given the protective orders were entered in the instant action on January 10, 2022 and in the Lead Case on April 7, 2022. (Joint Statement, pg. 4.) 

In response, Defendants assert the requests for sanctions should be denied because any delay in Defendants’ production of documents was attributed to CKRA’s refusal to agree to a protective order in the Lead Case until April 4, 2022, well after CKRA had filed the instant motions in December 2021.  Defendants assert that without protective orders entered in both the instant action and Lead Case, Defendants’ opposing parties in the Lead Case who are not parties in the instant case (e.g., Cuckoo Homesys Co. Ltd (“Homesys”) and Michael Yi (“Yi”)) would not be prevented from using information Defendants would have provided in response to discovery in the Lead Case.  (Joint Statement, pgs. 5-6.)  Defendants assert that once they received notice the protective order had been entered, they served discovery responses on May 23, 2022.  (Joint Statement, pg. 6.)  Defendants assert that since nearly any information provided in one case would also eventually be produced in the other, a protective order was necessary to cover the other defendants who were not named as parties in the instant case. (Joint Statement, pg. 7.) 

Motions to Compel Further

As discussed above, CKRA’s motions to compel Defendants to provide further responses are moot.

Requests for Sanctions

For motions to compel further responses to interrogatories and RFPs, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against a party that unsuccessfully opposes a motion unless it finds the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. §§2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).)  In addition, the fact Defendants provided supplemental responses to the at-issue discovery requests prior to the hearing on the motions, mooting the motions themselves, does not moot the issue of sanctions. (See CRC Rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions… in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though… the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”].) 

CKRA is not entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motions.  The Court finds Defendants acted with substantial justification and/or imposition of sanctions against Defendants would be unjust given the circumstances.  As discussed above, Defendants’ delay in producing supplemental responses to the discovery requests is directly related to the parties’ dispute over whether a protective order needed to be entered in the Lead Case for Defendants to respond to discovery in the instant case given the overlap of the parties and issues in the two actions.  CKRA filed the instant motions prior to either protective order being entered, and once the protective orders were entered, Defendants served the responses to discovery.  In addition, Yoon has already been sanctioned in the Lead Case in connection with the related discovery dispute. 

Based on the foregoing, CKRA’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Dated: August _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court