Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV35791, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35791    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Xiang Hao Cui (“Cui”), for himself and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Stanford Plaza Association, Inc., 800 East Pico Blvd, LLC, 808 East Pico Blvd, LLC, and Stanford Plaza Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Dae Yong Lee aka David Lee, Hellen Lee, Young Sung Cho, William Hong (“Hong”), Stanford Pico Plaza, LLC, and Secured Properties Management Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) removal of directors, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (4) accounting, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) injunctive relief.

On February 18, 2023, Cui served Hong with Cui’s Request for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) (collectively, the “First Set of Discovery Requests”). (Sergenian Decl., ¶¶ 2-6, Exs. A-D.) On April 26, 2023, Hong served responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests. (Sergenian Decl., ¶¶ 7-11, Exs. E-H.)

Counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding Hong’s responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests. (Sergenian Decl., ¶ 12.) On May 24, 2023, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). (Sergenian Decl., ¶ 12.) The Court’s May 24, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “[t]he parties attended the IDC on 5/24/2023 regarding the issues identified in the…IDC statement by Defendant dated 5/19/2023.[1] The parties have fulfilled their IDC requirement regarding those issues. The parties argued and the…Court ordered that Plaintiffs’ deadline for filing and serving motions to compel further responses to the initial set of request for productions, request for admissions, for interrogatories and special interrogatories propounded to Defendant Dae Young Lee, Hellen Lee, Secured Properties, Stanford Pico Plaza, LLC, William Hong, and Young Sung Cho is extended through July 31, 2023.”

Cui’s counsel states that “[d]uring the meet and confer process, the parties agreed to extend the time to move to compel to two weeks after the next IDC, which was convened on October 24, 2023. Meet and confer efforts before and after the second IDC did not lead to a resolution of these discovery issues.” (Sergenian Decl., ¶ 12.) The Court’s October 24, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[i]n open court, the Informal Discovery Conference is held. The discovery issues were not resolved.”

Cui now moves for an order compelling Hong to serve further responses to Cui’s First Set of Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, served on Hong on February 18, 2023. Cui also seeks monetary sanctions against Hong and Hong’s counsel. Hong opposes.

            Evidentiary Objections

            The Court sustains Hong’s objection to the reply declaration of David A. Sergenian and the exhibits attached thereto. As noted by Hong, “¿[t]he general rule of motion practice…is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.¿” (¿Jay v. Mahaffey¿(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537¿.) 

Discussion

A.    Procedural Issues

 As an initial matter, Hong’s counsel indicates that on October 4, 2023, Hong served amended responses to Cui’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Admissions (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, Exs. 3-6.) As set forth above, Cui’s motion concerns Hong’s initial responses served on April 26, 2023 to the subject First Set of Discovery Requests. (Sergenian Decl., ¶¶ 7-11, Exs. E-H.) Cui acknowledges in the reply that “[a]lmost six months after the discovery responses at issue were served, Hong served amended responses to discovery…” (Reply at p. 5:3-4.) Thus, the Court finds that Cui’s instant motion to compel further responses directed to Hong’s April 26, 2023 responses is moot.

Hong also asserts that “Plaintiffs’ separate statement runs afoul of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 because it improperly requires the Court to refer to other documents.” (Opp’n at p. 10:14-15.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c) provides as follows:

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:

(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;

(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;

(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;

(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;

(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and

(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

            Hong asserts that in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (c), “Plaintiff chose to omit Defendant’s Amended Responses (Kim Decl. Exs. 3-6) from the separate statement, which now requires the Court to review the other documents submitted by Defendant ‘to determine the full request and [Hong’s] full response.’” (Opp’n at p. 11:2-4.) Indeed, as discussed above, Cui’s motion concerns Hong’s responses served on April 26, 2023, despite the fact that amended responses were served on October 4, 2023. (Sergenian Decl., ¶¶ 7-11; Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Cui’s motion compel further responses.[2]

            Lastly, Cui seeks monetary sanctions. Cui asserts that “there is no excuse for Defendant’s refusal to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The concurrently filed Declaration of David A. Sergenian shows the efforts made on the part of Plaintiffs to avoid this motion, and the concurrently filed Separate Statement shows Defendant’s bad-faith assertion of non-meritorious, boilerplate objections.” (Mot. at p. 14:15-19.) As discussed, Hong filed amended responses to the discovery requests at issue, and the instant motion (and separate statement) concerns Hong’s initial responses. The Court does not find that Cui has demonstrated that sanctions are warranted against Hong here.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Cui’s motion to compel further responses. The Court also denies Cui’s request for sanctions.

The Court orders Hong to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  December 20, 2023                        ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court