Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 23STCV19432, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV19432, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19432 Hearing Date: February 19, 2025 Dept: 45

YANG HAI V. GOLDEN ARCUS INT’L CO., ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO GENERAL FORM INTERROGATORIES TO YU ZHOU AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO GOLDEN ARCUS INT’L CO. AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE AND TWO AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date of Hearing: February 19, 2025 Trial Date: December 15,

2025

Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV19432

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Yang Hai

Responding Party: Defendants Golden Arcus Int’l Co. and Yu Zhou

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from the alleged failure to pay wages. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff Yang Hai, an individual and on behalf of aggrieved employees (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Golden Arcus Int’l Co. (“Golden Arcus”), Yu Zhou (“Zhou”), Anita Wu (collectively, “Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197, and Wage Order No. 5 of the IWC; (2) failure to furnish wage and hour statements in violation of Lab. Code §§ 226 and 226.3; (3) failure to maintain accurate payroll records in violation of Lab. Code §§ 226, 1174, and 1174.5; (4) failure to pay meal and rest period compensation in violation of Lab. Code

§ 226.7; (5) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Lab. Code §§ 510 and 1194; (6) waiting time penalties in violation of Lab. Code §§ 201 through 203; (7) unfair business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (8) retaliation in violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (10) recovery of civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

On October 30, 2023, Defendants Golden Arcus and Zhou filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On November 17, 2023, pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff, Defendant Anita Wu was dismissed from the Complaint without prejudice.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a Motion to Compel Further Responses to General Form Interrogatories to Defendant Zhou and Special Interrogatories to Defendant Golden Arcus (the “Interrogatories Motion”). Pursuant to such motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Golden Arcus to serve verified responses to set one of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and an order compelling Defendant Zhou to serve verified responses to set one of Plaintiff’s form interrogatories. (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:4-10.) Such motion also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record, Law Offices of Ray Hsu & Associates, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,500.00.

On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Golden Arcus’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One and No. Two (the “RPD Motion”). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,500.00 against Defendant Golden Arcus and its counsel of record, Law Offices of Ray Hsu & Associates, jointly and severally, pursuant to the RPD Motion.

On February 6, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to the Interrogatories Motion. Also, on such date, Defendant Golden Arcus filed an opposition to the RPD Motion.

On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply brief as to the RPD Motion. No reply brief was filed as to the Interrogatories Motion.

Initially, the Court notes that the Interrogatories Motion improperly combines what should be two separate motions into one motion. Moreover, the RPD Motion seeks to compel Defendant Golden Arcus to provide responses to two different sets of requests for production of documents. Plaintiff cannot combine motions to avoid the filing fee. Plaintiff is reminded to file separate discovery motions specific to the type of responses sought. The Court, however, will still rule on the discovery requests at issue.

Critically, upon reviewing the moving papers and the opposition papers as to the Interrogatories Motion, the Court notes that neither Defendants’ initial nor supplemental responses are verified. Thus, the Court will treat the Interrogatories Motion as a motion to compel initial responses given the lack of verifications. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (Appleton).) Also, the Interrogatories Motion is brought under CCP § 2030.290, which concerns compelling initial responses to interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b) [setting forth that where a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.].) The Court is unsure why Plaintiff reserved and titled the Interrogatories Motion as a motion to compel further responses.

As to the RPD Motion, upon reviewing the notice of motion, the Court finds that such motion is brought pursuant to CCP § 2031.300, which concerns initial responses to a demand for inspection. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b) [setting forth that where a party fails to serve responses to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a further response to the demand.].) The Court is unsure why Plaintiff reserved and titled the RPD Motion as a motion to compel further when the CCP section upon which the motion is brought addresses compelling initial responses. Upon reviewing the initial responses and supplemental responses of Defendant Golden Arcus, the Court notes that such responses are unverified. Under Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636, the lack of verifications renders it as if Defendant Golden Arcus provided no responses at all. The Court will therefore treat the RPD Motion as a motion to compel initial responses.

The Court will address both the Interrogatories Motion and the RPD Motion in this one ruling.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Yang Hai’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to General Form Interrogatories to Yu Zhou and Special Interrogatories to Golden Arcus Int’l Co. (the “Interrogatories Motion”) is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Golden Arcus Int’l Co. is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Defendant Yu Zhou is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, No. 2.5 within 30 days of the date of notice this order. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED as to the Interrogatories Motion.

Plaintiff Yang Hai’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One and Two (the “RPD Motion”) is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Golden Arcus Int’l Co. is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47,49, 50, and 51) and Set Two (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 39) of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED as to the RPD Motion.

THE INTERROGATORIES MOTION

Initially, upon reviewing the moving papers and the opposition papers as to the Interrogatories Motion, the Court notes that neither Defendants’ initial nor supplemental responses are verified. (See LaCour Decl., Exhs. A and B; see also Phan Decl., Exhs. 4 and 5.) Thus, the Court will treat the Interrogatories Motion as a motion to compel initial responses given the lack of verifications. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (Appleton).) Also, the Interrogatories Motion is brought under CCP § 2030.290, which concerns compelling initial responses to interrogatories. The Court is unsure why Plaintiff reserved and titled the Interrogatories Motion as a motion to compel further responses.

According to Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the Interrogatories Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel: (1) Defendant Golden Arcus’s further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2; and (2) Defendant Zhou’s further response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.5. Plaintiff served Defendant Golden Arcus with special interrogatories, set one, on February 27, 2024, and served Defendant Zhou with form interrogatories, set one, on such date. (Decl. of Jonathan LaCour [LaCour Decl.] ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiff received purportedly deficient responses from Defendants as to the interrogatories at issue on May 3, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff requested supplemental responses from Defendants, but no responses were received upon the filing of the Interrogatories Motion. (LaCour Decl., ¶¶ 7, 13.) The Court notes that the respective initial responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and form interrogatories do not contain verifications. (LaCour Decl., Exhs. A and B.)

The Court notes that on February 6, 2025, Defendant Golden Arcus provided supplemental responses to special interrogatories nos. 1 and 2. (Phan Decl., ¶ 13; Exh. 4.) Also, on such date, Defendant Zhou provided a supplemental response to form interrogatory no. 2.5. (Phan Decl., ¶ 14; Exh. 5.) The Court has reviewed the supplemental responses. While the supplemental responses contain numerous objections, Defendants have provided substantive responses along with the interposed objections. However, the supplemental responses are unverified. The Court informs Defendants that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Also, Defendants have not provided any verifications with the opposition papers as to their initial responses to the discovery at issue in the Interrogatories Motion.

Legal Standard

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. A court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories on Defendant Golden Arcus and propounded form interrogatories on Defendant Zhou. However, Defendants Golden Arcus and Zhou both provided unverified initial and supplemental responses to the discovery at issue. Under Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.Ap.3d 632, 638, unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. Despite arguing in the opposition that the Interrogatories Motion is moot because verified further responses have been provided, based on the record before the Court, no verifications have been provided. (Phan Decl., ¶¶ 13-14; Exh. 4 and 5.)

Moreover, it is undisputed that Defendants did not respond to the interrogatories at issue until on or about May 3, 2024 even though they were served with such interrogatories on February 27, 2024. (LaCour Decl., Exhs. 4 and 5.) Defendants therefore have waived any objections under CCP § 2030.290(b).

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Golden Arcus to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, as well as Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant Yu Zhou to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one.

As to monetary sanctions, however, Plaintiff’s counsel does not set forth his hourly rate or time spent on the Interrogatories Motion. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 15.) The Court must ensure that any monetary sanctions imposed are reasonable. The attestation that counsel has “expended a significant amount of time in preparation of [the] motion” and “request that Defendants be ordered to [pay] monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,500.00” is insufficient. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 15.) Counsel should have set forth his hourly rate and the time spent on the instant motion. The Court will not award Plaintiff monetary sanctions pursuant to the Interrogatories Motion and DENIES such request.

Conclusion as to the Interrogatories Motion

The Interrogatories Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Golden Arcus is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Defendant Yu Zhou is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, No. 2.5 within 30 days of the date of notice this order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions as to the Interrogatories Motion.

THE RPD MOTION

Legal Standard

Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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 of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Golden Arcus’s verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. (See RPD Motion at p. 2:4-7.) Plaintiff served sets one and two of the RPDs at issue on Defendant Golden Arcus on February 27, 2024. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.)

Defendant Golden Arcus provided unverified initial responses to the RPDs at issue on or about May 3, 2024. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) The Court notes that Defendant Golden Arcus’s purported supplemental responses to set one and set two of Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents are also unverified despite argument in the opposition brief to the contrary. (Phan Decl., ¶¶ 11-12; Exh. 2-3.) Thes supplemental responses also contain objections. (Id.) Moreover, some of the documents produced by Defendant Golden Arcus as to the initial responses are illegible. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. C.)

On reply, Plaintiff contends that: (1) good cause exists to compel further responses and documents; and (2) sanctions against Defendant Golden Arcus are warranted. (See Reply at pp. 3-4.)

However, Plaintiff need not show good cause for a motion to compel initial responses to requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, although not raised by Plaintiff either in the moving papers or reply brief, the Court finds that the lack of verifications renders the initial and supplemental responses as being tantamount to no response at all under Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 638. The Court also finds that Defendant Golden Arcus waived any objections by serving untimely responses under CCP § 2031.300(a).

As to the request for monetary sanctions, the declaration of Mr. LaCour does not forth counsel’s hourly rate or time spent on the RPD Motion. The Court therefore cannot substantiate the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s request for $2,500.00 in monetary sanctions as to the RPD Motion against Defendant Golden Arcus and its counsel of record. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions as to the RPD Motion.

Conclusion as to the RPD Motion

The RPD Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Golden Arcus Int’l Co. is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47,49, 50, and 51) and Set Two (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 39) of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions as to the RPD Motion.

CONCLUSION