Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV06257, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06257    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 20, 2025, Defendant Chong Hui Chong filed five motions to compel Plaintiff Sung Min Kim’s further responses to Requests for Admission, Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories – General, and Form Interrogatories – Employment.

First, Defendant did not sufficiently meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing this motion.  On February 5, 2025, Defendant’s counsel “wrote a lengthy and detailed ‘Meet and Confer’ letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel and demanded that Plaintiff provide full and complete responses.”  (Heath Decl. ¶ 4.)  Only six days later, Defendant sent Plaintiff the draft Joint Statement.  (Heath Decl. ¶ 5.)  There is no information about additional efforts to confer about the issues in good faith.  It is a sanctionable misuse of the discovery process when a party fails “to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (i).)  All parties are warned that sanctions may be imposed for future failures to properly confer.

Second, Plaintiff wrongly complains about Defendant not including memoranda of points and authorities to support the motions.  For a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)  This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website, www.lacourt.org) and file a joint statement.  Defendant followed this procedure, but Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with their portion of the Joint Statement.

Third, Plaintiff provided supplemental responses on March 27, 2025.  (Kim Decl. ¶ 13.)  The motions are now moot with respect to Plaintiff’s original responses.  Defendant argues that “many of the responses provided by Plaintiff are still substandard and non-responsive.”  (Reply at p. 2.)  However, the parties have briefed Plaintiff’s prior responses, not the recent supplemental responses.  If those new responses are also deficient, Defendant’s remedy is to seek further responses to those responses.

The motions to compel further responses are DENIED AS MOOT.

The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  Plaintiff’s production of supplemental responses only when faced with Defendant’s motions—and not until the day the opposition was filed—warrants sanctions.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay total sanctions of $2,000.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 10th day of April 2025