Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV21799, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21799    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 39

3800 West Sixth Street, LLC v. Steven C. Kim

Case No. 22STCV21799

Order #1 of 3

Motion for Protective Order

            Plaintiffs seek a protective order excusing them from responding to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three (“RPDs”), Requests for Admission, Set Three (“RFAs”), and Form Interrogatories, Set Four (“FROGs”).  Defendants served 117 special interrogatories, 279 requests for admission, 178 requests for production of documents, and four sets of form interrogatories.

            The Court grants the motion with respect to the RFAs.  A party is permitted 35 requests for admission (not relating to the genuineness of documents) unless the complexity of the case or quantity of issues justifies additional requests.  Under this standard, Defendants are not entitled to more than 127 requests. 

            The Court grants the motion with respect to the RPDs.  These RPDs request documents relating to the RFAs.  Because the Court grants the motion with respect to the RFAs, the RPDs now are moot. 

            The Court grants the motion with respect to the FROGs.  The FROGs request responses to Request Number 17.1, which relates to the RFAs.  Because the Court grants the motion with respect to the RFAs, the FROGs are now are moot. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order.

            2.         Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 3

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiffs move to compel further responses  from Defendant Steven C. Kim to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) and Form Interrogatory, Number 17.1 (the “FROG”).  The Court rules as follows:

            RFA #9 – GRANTED.  This RFA asks Defendant to admit that he advised Susan Ahn in connection with her negotiations with 3800 West Sixth Street, LLC to purchase the property.  Defendant objects on grounds of privilege.  The objection is overruled.  This RFA merely asks if Defendant represented Susan Ahn and the nature and scope of that representation.  The RFA does not ask for the content of any communication.  Therefore, the motion is granted. 

RFA #10 – GRANTED.  See above.

            RFA #14 – GRANTED.  Defendant objects on the ground that “conflict waiver language” is ambiguous.  The Court is skeptical of this argument.  Regardless, it is not a basis to object.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(b)(3) and (c) are clear.   

            RFA #15 – GRANTED.  See above.

            FROG #17.1 – GRANTED.  See above.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to the RFAs and the FROG.  Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days.  Plaintiffs’ shall provide notice. 

Order #3 of 3

Scheduling Order

            Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.  The motion is set for hearing on March 29, 2024.  The Court will be unexpectedly dark on that date.  Therefore, the Court advances and continues the hearing from March 29, 2024, to April 26, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  However, the opposition and reply briefs shall be due based upon the statutory deadlines associated with the former hearing date (March 29, 2024). 

            Defendant has reserved a hearing date of May 13, 2024, for a motion for summary judgment.  The Court advances and continues that hearing date to August 26, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  The briefing schedule shall be based upon the statutory deadlines associated with the new hearing date (May 13, 2024).

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.