Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 19NWCV0063 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19NWCV0063, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 19NWCV0063 Hearing Date: September 6, 2022 Dept: SEC

KIM v. S&H BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.

CASE NO.: 19NWCV0063

HEARING: 9/6/22 @ 10:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Plaintiff Kim’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production set 1 to Byung Ha Chang is GRANTED.

II. Plaintiff Kim’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production set 1 to S&H Business Management, Inc. is GRANTED.

Reduced sanctions are imposed against Defendants and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reasonable sum of $3,000.00, payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Kim moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to requests for production of documents pursuant CCP § 2031.310.

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

A “reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4^th 1431, 1439.) Rather, what the statute requires is “that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id. at 1438.)

On May 24, 2022, the parties were ordered to further meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute. The court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred in good faith. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 19 and 28, Ex. C.)

Chang’s response to RPD No. 1 and S&H Business Management, Inc.’s responses to RPD Nos. 1-2:

The court finds Defendants’ responses are incomplete and evasive. CCP § 2031.280(a) requires that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” Simply responding that the documents were previously produced does not satisfy the requirements of CCP § 2031.280(a). Further, if documents do not exist, Defendant mustsupplement its response to indicate that after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry the documents “ha[ve] never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (CCP § 2031.230.) If known, Defendant must identify the “name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Id.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to serve supplemental responses within 15 days.

Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and 2031.310(h) authorize the court to impose sanctions against the unsuccessful party unless the court finds the party acted with substantial justification.

Here, sanctions are warranted against Defendants because they served evasive discovery responses. The court finds Plaintiff’s total request of $13,600 is excessive. Instead, reduced sanctions are imposed against Defendants and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reasonable sum of $3,000.00, payable within 30 days.