Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV07916, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07916    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Xing Qin Nelson

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One  

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Xing Qin Nelson

(2)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Xing Qin Nelson

(3)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production  

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2020, plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, a partnership composed of Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendant Xing Qin Nelson (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to various requests in its Requests for Admissions, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  Plaintiff further requests the court to award sanctions against Defendant in connection with each motion. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant’s further responses to its Requests for Admissions, Set One, numbers 27 through 34, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the sum of $3,060.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to its Requests for Admissions, numbers 27 through 34, because Defendant’s answers to those requests are evasive and incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)  The court finds that $3,060 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff, made in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant’s further responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 36 through 114, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $3,060.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, numbers 36 through 114, because Plaintiff’s declaration in support of its special interrogatories did not fully comply with the statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050.  

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.

The court grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, made in opposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)  The court finds that $2,175 (5 hours x $435 hourly rate) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiff in connection with this motion.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1 through 14, and 16, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $3,060.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to its Requests for Production, numbers 1, 9 through 14, and 16, because Defendant’s statements of compliance with the demands are incomplete.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to its Requests for Production, numbers 2 through 8, because Defendant’s objections are without merit.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).)  The court notes that Defendant, in opposition, argues that Plaintiff did not number its demands correctly, and refers the court to Exhibit A in support of this contention.  (Opp., p. 2:19-20.)  However, Exhibit A contains a copy of a letter sent to Plaintiff, and is not a copy of the demand received by Defendant.  The court therefore finds that Defendant has not presented evidence establishing that Plaintiff’s demands were incorrectly numbered, and finds that Defendant’s objections on this ground are without merit.

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)  The court finds that $3,060 ($3,000 in attorney’s fees + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant on this motion.

The court denies Defendant’s request to impose sanctions against Plaintiff, made in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, the court orders defendant Xing Qin Nelson to serve further, complete responses to plaintiff Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, numbers 27 through 34, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.210-2033.220, and 2033.240, within 20 days of the date of this order.¿¿¿ 

The court denies plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.050.)

The court grants plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders defendant Xing Qin Nelson (1) to serve on plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox further written responses to plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 1 through 14 and 16,  that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox all documents and things in defendant Xing Qin Nelson’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of this order.  

The court grants plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox’s requests for sanctions made in connection with its motions to compel further responses to its requests for admission and requests for production of documents.  The court orders defendant Xing Qin Nelson to pay to plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox sanctions in the total amount of $6,120.

The court grants defendant Xing Qin Nelson’s request for sanctions made in the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its special interrogatories.  The court orders plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox to pay to defendant Xing Qin Nelson sanctions in the amount of $2,175.

Because the court has ordered defendant Xing Qin Nelson to pay to plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox sanctions in the amount of $6,120, and the court has ordered plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox to pay to defendant Xing Qin Nelson sanctions in the amount of $2,175 on these motions, the court exercises its discretion to order that those sanctions awards are offset so that (1) defendant Xing Qin Nelson is ordered to pay $3,945 to plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, and (2) plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox is ordered to pay $0 to defendant Xing Qin Nelson.  

The court orders plaintiff The Law Firm of Fox and Fox to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  September 13, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court