Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV44155, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44155    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 45

Chuleeporn Phapornchai v. Allen Phapornchai, et al.

motion for a protective order

Date of Hearing:         02/24/2025                              Trial Date:       None Set

Department:                45                                            Case No.:        21STCV44155

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Brian Phapornchai, administrator of the Estate of Chuleeporn Phapornchai (Decedent)

Responding Party:      Defendant Allen Phapornchai

BACKGROUND

Factual and Procedural Background –

On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Chuleeporn Phapornchai (“Decedent”)  filed the instant action against Defendants Allen Kiatthavee Phapornchai (“Defendant”); all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive. Decedent passed away while this case was pending on November 6, 2022. Based on the allegations of the complaint, Defendant is one of Decedent’s three sons. Brian Phapornchai, another son became the administrator of the Estate. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) quiet title, (3) cancellation of instrument, (4) financial elder abuse, and (5) constructive trust.

The allegations of the Complaint are as follows. Decedent was 79 years-old at the time of the filing of the Complaint. Decedent was born and raised in Thailand and did not read nor speak English. (Compl., ¶9.) Decedent had three sons, one of whom is Defendant. Decedent at times relied on Defendant to assist her with her financial affairs.

In 1987, Decedent recorded and acquired title to 5257 North Calera Avenue, City of Covina, CA 91722 (the “Property”). In 2020, Defendant, who would typically pick up Decedent on a weekly basis to assist with errands, shopping, or going out for walks, picked Decedent up and took her to a notary. (Compl., ¶18.) Without providing any explanation, Defendant allegedly presented and coerced Decedent into signing a Quitclaim Deed that transferred the Property to Defendant for no consideration. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant, who was authorized to make transactions with Decedent’s account, withdrew approximately $15,793.95 out of Decedent’s account. (Id. at ¶25.) When other members of the family found out, they demanded the Property be transferred back, along with the funds.  Defendant refused, and this suit followed.

The motion now before the Court is a Motion for a Protective Order (the Motion) filed by Brian Phapornchai in his capacity as administrator of the Estate of Chuleenporn Phapornchai (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”). Defendant opposes the Motion; Plaintiff files a reply.      

Tentative Ruling

             As the method of discovery is unduly burdensome, the court grants the requested protective order as to Special Interrogatories, Set One served on December 17, 2024.  The court also orders sanctions against defendant in the amount of $2,000.00.   

LEGAL STANDARD

Code Civ. Proc. §2019.030 provides the governing standard:

“(a) The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:

(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

(b) The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

            Additionally, in considering whether discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, warranting a protective order, the court takes into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.090(b).)

ANALYSIS

             The parties’ contentions center on the Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded on Plaintiff by Defendant on December 17, 2024. Defendant propounded 114 individual interrogatories, however Code Civ. Proc. §2030.030(a)(1) only permits 35 special interrogatories. If a party propounds more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories, the propounding party must provide a declaration pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2030.050. Defendant failed to do so.

Moreover, if the responding party seeks a protective order – as Plaintiff does here – on the ground that the number of special interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party has the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. ¶2030.040(b).)  In their opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for the protective order. However this argument is based on a misreading of the law, as the burden is on Defendant to justify why 114 specially prepared interrogatories are necessary. Again, Defendant fails to do so. Therefore, the Motion for the Protective Order is granted.             

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations via the Declaration of Lyle R. Mink:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $485

·         Counsel spent five hours preparing the Motion

·         Counsel expected to spend two hours on the reply and three more hours on the hearing for this Motion

·         The filing fee for this Motion was $60.

·         Counsel requests a total of $4,910.00

Considering the routine nature of this Motion, the Court will impose sanctions against Defendant but in a lesser amount.  The court finds that four hours to be a reasonable amount of time to have spent on this simple motion, or $1940, plus the filing fee, for a total sanction amount of $2000. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the court grants a protective order, providing that plaintiff need only respond to the first 35 Special Interrogatories.  Verified responses to be served within 30 days.  The court also orders sanctions in the amount of $2000 payable to plaintiff jointly and severally by defendant and their counsel within 30 days.