Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV35314, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV35314    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Andrew Khun       

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Plaintiffs Jing Du, Yu Bai, and Ye Qiu         

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

(2)   Motion to Compel Yu Bai’s Further Responses to Requests for Production

(3)   Motion to Compel Ye Qiu’s Further Responses to Requests for Production

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

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court sustains plaintiffs Jing Du, Yu Bai, and Ye Qiu’s evidentiary objections to defendant Andrew Khun’s request for judicial notice.  (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 241 [“‘new evidence is not permitted with reply papers’”].)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies defendant Andrew Khun’s request for judicial notice, filed on November 30, 2023, as an improper attempt to introduce new evidence in reply.  (Carbajal, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.)

The court denies plaintiffs Jing Du, Yu Bai, and Ye Qiu’s request for judicial notice but has considered the issue as to which motions are on calendar below.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Defendant Andrew Khun (“Defendant”) filed the pending motion to compel plaintiff Jing Du’s further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, on July 24, 2023.  In the omnibus opposition papers filed by plaintiffs Jing Du (“Du”), Yu Bai (“Bai”), and Ye Qiu (“Qiu”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Plaintiffs contend that they served verified supplemental responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories in July 2023.  (Opp., p. 2:8-10.)  In reply, Defendant (1) asserts that the omnibus reply is filed in support of Defendant’s “three Motions to Compel Further Responses and to Compel Production of Responsive Documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One,” and (2) states that Plaintiffs’ assertion that they served supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories is “[i]rrelevant[,]” because “[t]hese motions involve Requests for Production of Documents[.]”  (Reply, pp. 1:23-2:1, 4:16-20.)  Defendant’s assertions, however, are incorrect, because Defendant’s motion to compel Du’s further responses to Special Interrogatories is now pending before the court.

It appears that Defendant made an inadvertent clerical error in failing to take off calendar the motion to compel Du’s further responses to Special Interrogatories.  On November 13, 2023, Defendant filed a “Notice of Taking Motions Off Calendar,” stating that he was taking off calendar, inter alia, “[t]he motion of Defendant Andrew Khun to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, regarding Plaintiff Jing Du, previously scheduled for November 21, 2023, Reservation No. 4190 5971 5280[.]”  (Nov. 13, 2023 Notice, p. 1, ¶ 1.)  However, the motion belonging to the reservation ID number ending in 5280 is not the pending motion to compel Du’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, but rather Defendant’s motion to compel Du’s further responses to Requests for Production.

Thus, it appears that Defendant (1) intended to take off calendar the motion to compel Du’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, but (2) instead erroneously took off calendar the motion to compel Du’s further responses to Requests for Production.

The court therefore exercises its discretion to order the following.

First, the court takes off calendar Defendant’s motion to compel Du’s further responses to Special Interrogatories pursuant to Defendant’s November 13, 2023, Notice of Taking Motions Off Calendar.  (Nov. 13, 2023 Notice, p. 1, ¶ 1.)

Second, the court resets Defendant’s motion to compel Du’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents for hearing on February 13, 2024, in order to give plaintiff Du an opportunity to file an opposition to that motion. 

MOTION TO COMPEL BAI’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Bai to serve further responses and to produce responsive documents to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-16, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against plaintiff Bai in the amount of $3,210.

The court notes that, in opposition, Bai has presented evidence showing that Bai served supplemental responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9-16.  (Shikai Decl., ¶ 22; Shikai Decl., Ex. 8 [Bai’s Supplemental Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One].)  The court exercises its discretion to consider the supplemental responses to those requests in ruling on Defendant’s motion.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case”].)

The court denies Defendant’s motion to compel Bai’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1, 3-4, and 8 because Bai’s representations of his inability to comply with those demands are not inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

The court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Bai’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 2, 5-7, and 9-16 because Bai’s statements of compliance to those demands are incomplete since Bai does not state whether the production will be allowed in whole or in part.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.)

In light of the mixed results of the court’s ruling, the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Bai.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

MOTION TO COMPEL QIU’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant moves the court for an order (1) compelling plaintiff Qiu to serve further responses and to produce responsive documents to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-19, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Defendant and against plaintiff Qiu in the amount of $3,210.

The court notes that, in opposition, Qiu asserts that supplemental responses were served and has presented evidence showing that Qiu served supplemental responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, 9-16, and 18.  (Shikai Decl., ¶ 22; Shikai Decl., Ex. 9 [Qiu’s Supplemental Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One].)  The court exercises its discretion to consider the supplemental responses to those requests in ruling on Defendant’s motion.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

            The court denies Defendant’s motion to compel Qiu’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 3-4, 8, 17, and 19 because Qiu’s representations of her inability to comply with those demands are not inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

The court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Qiu’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-2, 5-7, 9-16, and 18 because Qiu’s statements of compliance to those demands are incomplete since Qiu does not state whether the production will be allowed in whole or in part.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1), 2031.220.)

In light of the mixed results of the court’s ruling, the court finds that the circumstances presented make the imposition of sanctions unjust and therefore denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Qiu.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

ORDER

            The court orders that defendant Andrew Khun’s motion to compel plaintiff Jing Du’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is taken off calendar.

            The court resets defendant Andrew Khun’s motion to compel plaintiff Jing Du’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, filed on July 24, 2023, for hearing on February 13, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court grants defendant Andrew Khun’s motion to compel Yu Bai’s further responses to requests for production of documents as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders plaintiff Yu Bai (1) to serve on defendant Andrew Khun further written responses to defendant Andrew Khun’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 2, 5-7, and 9-16 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to defendant Andrew Khun all documents and things in plaintiff Yu Bai’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of this order.

            The court denies defendant Andrew Khun’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Yu Bai.

            The court grants defendant Andrew Khun’s motion to compel Ye Qiu’s further responses to requests for production of documents as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the court orders plaintiff Ye Qiu (1) to serve on defendant Andrew Khun further written responses to defendant Andrew Khun’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 1-2, 5-7, 9-16, and 18 that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to defendant Andrew Khun all documents and things in plaintiff Ye Qiu’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within 20 days of the date of this order.

            The court denies defendant Andrew Khun’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Ye Qiu.

            The court orders defendant Andrew Khun to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 7, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court