Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case BC699687 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC699687, Date: 2022-07-26 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.

Case Number: BC699687 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: July 26, 2022

CASE NAME: Kwan Hyop Lee v. S D G San Marino LLC

CASE NO.: BC699687

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kwan Hyop Lee

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant S D G San Marino LLC

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order compelling Defendant to provide further, verified responses, without objections to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 21, and 23

2. An order awarding Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,060.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. The Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED, as to Nos. 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 21, and 23

2. Request for Sanctions is GRANTED, totaling $2,860.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff Kwon Hyop Lee dba United Painting & Maintenance (“Plaintiff”) obtained a judgment against S.D.G. San Marino LLC (“Defendant”) for damages totaling $36,850.

On July 15, 2020, the court awarded $51,747.50 in attorney fees to Plaintiff.

On November 30, 2020, the court signed an amended judgment in the amount of $36,850 in damages, $9,914,41 in costs and $51,747.50 in attorney fees to Plaintiff.

On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff served post judgment requests for production.

Plaintiff, as a Judgment Creditor, filed the current Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses on April 15, 2022.

Defendant, as a Judgment Debtor, filed an Opposition on July 12, 2022.

Plaintiff filed a reply on July 19, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD:

“A judgment creditor may conduct discovery directly against the judgment debtor by means of a judgment debtor examination ([CCP] § 708.110), written interrogatories (§ 708.020), and requests for production of documents (§ 708.030).” (Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 736, 743.)

CCP section 708.020(a), concerning written interrogatories, states that “a judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor … requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” CCP section 708.030(a), concerning inspection demands, states that “[t]he judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand … to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made … if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”

Interrogatories served pursuant to CCP section 708.020 and requests for production of documents served pursuant to CCP section 708.030 “may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the manner as [interrogatories and inspection demands] in a civil action.” (CCP §§ 708.020(c), 708.020(c).) This means that a judgment creditor may bring a motion to compel a further response if the judgment debtor’s response is unsatisfactory and request monetary sanctions against the losing party. (See CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.)

Service:

Proof of Service was attached to each document filed by the parties. Service was done via email, and the parties email address were all provided.

Meet and Confer:

The Plaintiff sent an initial meet and confer letter on February 7, 2022. (Decl. Sara Poster ¶ 3, Ex. 2). Defendant sent unverified supplemental responses and Plaintiff sent a second meet and confer letter. (Decl. Sara Poster ¶ 4, Ex. 3-5). This is sufficient for meet and confer efforts.

Timeliness:

A judgment creditor may conduct post-judgment discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030.) The demand was served more than 120 days after entry of judgment or judgment debtor examination. The entry of judgment was entered on November 30, 2020. (Dec. March ¶ 3). This current motion was filed on April 15, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves to have the Defendant provide further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. The responses provided by Defendant contain boilerplate objections and not code compliant responses, promises to provide documents that were not provided. As such, the Court orders further code compliant responses without objection within 30 days of service of this order except as indicated below.

For Nos. 23, the request seeks documents and communications regarding engagement and termination of attorneys for Case No. BC699687. Defendant objected stating that the requested information is privilege as “attorney-client information.” Ordinarily under CCP § 2031.240(c)(1), “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” Here, while the Defendant failed to produce factual information to evaluate the merits of the claim documents and communications with a client with their counsel concerning engagement and termination are privileged on their face. No further factual information is needed to evaluate such a claim of privilege. Therefore, the objection is SUSTAINED and no further responses for the above requests are required.

Sanctions:.
Under CCP § 2031.310(h) indicates that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Plaintiff requests $4,060 in monetary sanctions. This is based on an hourly rate of $400, with seven hours worked on the initial motion and an anticipatory 3 hours on the reply and attending the hearing. An additional $60.00 filing fee is also requested. The Court finds that six hours is reasonable at the requested hourly rate for a total of $2,400, plus the additional $60.00 filing fee for a total sanction of $2,460. Sanctions are imposed jointly against Defendant and Defense counsel Jeff Mann.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

The Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED, as to Nos. 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 21.

Request for Sanctions is in the amount of $2,460 against Defendant and counsel Jeff Mann is GRANTED.

Code compliant responses and payment of sanctions are due within 60 days of service of this order.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court