Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 23STCV14729, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kwon Whan Cook, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Scott Cook

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Hye Jung Kyun Kang, Family-In-Love LLC, Yun Ja Kim, and Soo Kyung Lee.

1. An Order compelling Defendant Kang to produce incomplete bank deposit slips and to execute a consent for the Korean Family Census Registry to produce marital records;

2. An Order compelling Defendants Kim and Lee to produce emails, text messages, and call logs; and

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff Kwon Whan Cook (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Yun Ja Kim, Soo Kyung Lee a/k/a Soon Lee, Shannon Sung a/k/a Eun Young Sung, Hye Jung Kyung Kang, Family-In-Love LLC, Ellen Kawashiri, David Kang, Ryan Chun, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Silver Hill Funding, LLC.¿¿

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff applied to appoint a Guardian ad Litem, which the court granted.¿

On August 25, 2023, Defendant Yu Ja Kim (Defendant Kim) filed a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, which the court DENIED on October 31, 2023.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) with twelve causes of action for:¿

According to the FAC, there are two properties at issue. The first is a commercial property located at 8440 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90003 (the Broadway Property). The second property is a commercial property located at 1308 S. Van Ness Ave., Los Angeles, California 90019 (the Van Ness Property). Plaintiff and Defendant Kim married on December 28, 2012 in a confidential marriage. (FAC ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges capacity issues due to extended opoid use and dementia. (FAC ¶¶ 23-29, 35.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kim forged a deed purporting to transfer the Broadway Property from Plaintiff’s separate property to their community property and then solely to herself. (FAC ¶¶ 30, 35(h), 35(m).)¿ Plaintiff alleges that all defendants intended to purchase the Van Ness Property through their ownership of the Broadway Property. (FAC ¶ 39.) Plaintiff also alleges a series of notary fraud.¿¿

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. only.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Three) from Defendant Yun Ja Kim which the court GRANTED.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants Yun Ja Kim and Soo Kyung Lee filed a Stipulation with Proposed Order to release confidential marriage certificates which the court GRANTED.

On August 26, 2024, Defendant Hye Jung Kung Kang and Family-In-Love LLC filed a demurrer with motion to strike to the FAC.

On October 10, 2024, the court held an Informal Discovery Conference and, on its own motion, determined that future IDCs in this matter would be futile hence no future IDCs needed in advance of discovery motions.

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Consent and Compliance re Production of Emails and Text Message (Mot. 1).

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel Compliance for Defendant Kang to provide consent for Family Census Register and for Production of Missing Documents (Mot. 2)[1].

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third version of the Motion to Compel Compliance for Defendant Kang (Mot. 3).

On November 19, 2024, the court heard an ex parte application for Order to Redact or Seal Highly Sensitive Personal Information. The court ORDERED the parties not to file any more exhibits due to a history of overwhelming the court with filings. The court further ORDERED Counsel Paul Cook and Yong Bom (Brian) Lee to read the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Chapter Three, Civil Division, Appendix 3.A, Guidelines for Civility in Litigation and file a signed declaration acknowledging having read Appendix 3.A and will comply.[2]

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a fourth version of the Motion to Compel Compliance for Defendant Kang (Mot. 4.).

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses re Requests for Admission (Set One) for Defendant Soon You Kim.

Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, of control of any other party to the action.¿ (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (a).)¿ A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.¿ (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (c).)¿ A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter onto any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.¿ (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (d).)¿¿

Within 30 days of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand and a copy on all other parties who have appeared in the action.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)¿The party to whom a demand for inspection has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection.¿ (Id., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)¿¿

A party may move to compel further written response to a request for production if the responding party’s statement of compliance is incomplete; a representation of in ability to comply is inadequate; or an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) To prevail, the party moving for the order must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) There is no fixed time limit on this motion and no requirement to show any attempt to resolve the matter informally. The only required showing is that the responding party failed to comply as agreed. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)

As an initial matter, the court notes that Plaintiff impermissibly filed three separate requests for relief as a single Motion. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.)

Second, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Defendant Kim’s Verified Amended Responses were served on April 18, 2024 via email. (Mot. 1, Exhibit E.) The deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to these responses was on or before June 4, 2024 which is 45 days plus 2 court days for electronic service. (CCP § 2031.310(c); CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).) The motion does not include Defendant Lee’s responses. Defendant Kang’s supplemental responses were served on June 3, 2024 via email. (Mot. 4, Exhibit A.) The deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for that was July 22, 2024. (CCP § 2031.310(c); CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).) Plaintiff began filing these motions on October 22, 2024 – well after the deadline to file motions to compel further.

Third, Plaintiff’s argument that the court has authority to order the various defendants to consent to produce other documents is not well taken. Notably, it is apparently premature. Additionally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Juror Number One v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 854 is misplaced. In that case, a criminal case, the court was investigating juror misconduct and the records sought were social networking website information to determine the extent of that juror’s disseminating case information while serving on the jury. While the court appreciates zealous advocacy, that case simply does not expand the scope of the already-broad scope of discovery allowed via the pertinent discovery statutes.

[1] Plaintiff apparently filed this motion again with a hearing date of February 18, 2025.

[2] The court has not received this declaration as of January 22, 2025.