Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00043, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00043    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: A

1.PPlaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES       

Respondent: Defendant Joo Ok Chung

2.     Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Respondent: Defendant Joo Ok Chung

3.     Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

            Respondent: Defendant Joo Ok Chung

Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Respondent: Defendant Joo Ok Chung

5.      Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO, ADMITTED

            Respondent: Defendant Joo Ok Chung

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC’s Motions to Compel Responses and Deem Requests for Admissions are deemed MOOT.   Defendant provided responses (untimely) to the subject discovery requests.  Sanctions are awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,908.25, payable within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff ROIC Diamond Hills Plaza, LLC alleges that SOMA USA, Inc.; Joo Ok Chung (Defendant); Myung Ja Cho; Kun-Woong Cho; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, failed to make payments under a lease for space in a shopping center. The Complaint, filed January 19, 2021, asserts causes of action for:

1.  Breach of Lease

2.  Breach of Written Guaranty of Lease

Trial Readiness Conference is set for April 3, 2023. Non-Jury Trial is set for April 10, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide responses to its supplemental interrogatories, supplemental request for production of documents, request for production of documents set two, and supplemental requests for admission.  Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted its requests for admission set two. Last, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions of $1,101.00 for each of motions. Defendant has filed oppositions to each of the Plaintiff’s motions.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to requests for production if a response has not been received. Similarly, pursuant to section 2030.290, subdivision (b), the propounding party may file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, the responding party waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).) Finally, section 2033.280, subdivisions (b) and (c) allow the requesting party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served a response that is in substantial compliance before the hearing. In all cases, a response must be provided within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a); 2031.260, subd. (a);  2033.250, subd. (a).)

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such orders to compel absent substantial justification or other circumstances that make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) The court shall also impose mandatory sanctions “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated” a motion to deem admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) While the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, the court “has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791 (Cornerstone).)   

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with its supplemental interrogatories, request for production of documents set two, and supplemental request for production of documents. After receiving no response a month later, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant on August 15 and received assurances of a response. On August 22 and August 26, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a second and third email inquiring on the status of discovery and received no response. On October 5, 2022, Defendant filed untimely responses to all five of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,101.00 for each motion including a filing fee of $61.65, itemized as follows: 1.8 hours spent drafting the motion, 0.80 hours reviewing the motion, and 0.40 hours drafting email correspondence at $425 an hour for partners and $295 an hour for associates.

All five of the Plaintiff’s motions are deemed MOOT.  Defendant filed responses before the hearing.  However, the untimely responses warrant reasonable sanctions. 

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions is $1,908.25 ($61.65 in filing fees for each of the 5 motions ($308.25), plus 1.5 hours for drafting each of the 5 motions ($1,500), plus 30 minutes for attending the hearing ($100), calculated at the rate of $200/hour).

Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.