Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV42130, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42130    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 39

Shuo Wang, M.D. v. Fire Dragon Investment LLC

Case No. 20STCV42130

Motions to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff Shuo Wang, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Fire Dragon Investment LLC, Lynn Tran, and Victor Le (collectively, “Defendants”) on November 3, 2020, asserting causes of action for accounting, money had and received, open book account, conversion, unfair business practices, and breach of fiduciary duty. 

Defendant Fire Dragon Investment LLC (“Defendant”) filed motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  After the motions were filed, Plaintiff served supplemental responses.  (See Declaration of Gregory Freeburg, Exhs. A-C.)  Therefore, the motions are denied as moot.

Plaintiff filed motions to compel further responses from Defendant to Requests for Production, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  The motions were not accompanied by memoranda of points and authorities, separate statements, or copies of the discovery requests and responses at issue.  Therefore, the motions are denied. 

In connection with Defendant’s motions, Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his former counsel in the total amount of $8,805.  The request is denied based upon the opposition of Plaintiff’s new counsel, which attributes the errors and delays to his former counsel.  This constitutes good cause not to sanction Plaintiff.  The Court cannot impose sanctions against Plaintiff’s former counsel, as they no longer are counsel-of-record in this case and have not had an opportunity to oppose the request.  This order is without prejudice to Defendant serving a separate motion for sanctions against Plaintiff’s former counsel and serving them.   

In connection with Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his former counsel in the total amount of $2,750.  The Court agrees that these motions, as well as the failure to meet-and-confer and resolve the outstanding discovery disputes, constitute an abuse of the discovery process.  The Court finds that there was no substantial justification for either motion.  The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,750, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.  The Court cannot impose sanctions against Plaintiff’s former counsel, as they no longer are counsel-of-record in this case and have not had an opportunity to oppose the request.  This order is without prejudice to Defendant serving a separate motion for sanctions against Plaintiff’s former counsel and serving them.   

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are denied.

2.         Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are denied.

3.         The Court orders Plaintiff to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel, in the amount of $2,750 within thirty (30) days.

4.         The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer via telephone before filing any further discovery motions.

5.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.