Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV02102, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV02102    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff North Mill Equipment Finance LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

Respondent: Defendant David Niet Trinh

Plaintiff North Mill Equipment Finance LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

Respondent: Defendant David Niet Trinh

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff North Mill Equipment Finance LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant David Niet Trinh is ordered to serve code-complaint responses without objection within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff North Mill Equipment Finance LLC’s Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant David Niet Trinh is ordered to serve code-complaint responses without objection within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this order. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On June 19, 2019, Defendant Baldwin Sun, Inc. (Baldwin Sun) entered into a written commercial security agreement with Plaintiff North Mill Equipment Finance LLC, a servicing agent for North Mill Credit Trust. In support of the agreement, Defendant David Viet Trinh (Trinh) executed a personal guarantee. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the agreement by failing to make payments and owing a sum of $140,852.22 as of August 18, 2022.

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written agreement, (2) claim and delivery, (3) open book account, (4) account stated, (5) unjust enrichment, and (6) breach of personal guarantee.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motions. A hearing on the motions is set for August 14. A case management conference is also set for August 30.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Trinh (Defendant) to respond to discovery requests including form and special interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in each motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), the propounding party may file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. A response must be provided within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If responses are untimely, the responding party waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 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).) 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).)

Discussion

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served discovery requests on Defendant, including form and special interrogatories. (Mc Kendrick Decl., ¶ 3.) On June 1, Defendant’s counsel requested a one-week extension and Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendant’s request. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 5-6.) On June 7, 2023, Defendant’s counsel provided a response that included a mix of unverified responses and objections. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 4.) On June 8, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant’s counsel that noted the responses were unverified and warned that counsel planned on seeking a motion to compel in at least sixty days. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 5.) On June 14, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a second meet-and-confer letter to Defendant’s counsel that requested verified responses by June 20. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 6.)

Subsequently, Defendant failed to provide any additional verified responses. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 10.) In opposition, Defendant’s counsel provided a declaration stating counsel was unable to presently communicate with Defendant due to Defendant being hospitalized in Vietnam. (Chodos Decl., ¶ 3-6.) Because Defendant’s responses were incomplete and unverified, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.

Defendant David Niet Trinh is
ordered to serve code-complaint responses without objection to Plaintiff’s form
and special interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this
order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant. However, in light of the claim that delays in discovery were due to Defendant’s hospitalization in a foreign country, the court finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust and denies Plaintiff’s request.