Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV03878, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03878    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 45

JOO YOUNG JUN vs IRORI RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT INC, et al.

motionS to compel discovery responses

Date of Hearing:        June 2, 2025                          Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV03878

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Joo Young Jun

Responding Party:     Defendants Min Jung Son  

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2024, Joo Young Jun (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against their former employer Irori Restaurant Management Inc. (Irori), and owner and Chief Executive Officer Byung Ha Chang (Chang) alleging several violations of California Labor Codes.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One and Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Joo Young Jun moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Min Jung Son to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One and Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may also move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant Son on January 25, 2025. At the time of the filing of the motion, no responses had been received.

Defendant Son filed an opposition on May 19, 2025, arguing the motions are moot because Defendant Son has now served verified responses to the interrogatories. Defendant Son also argues the interrogatories nor the motions to compel were properly served on Defendant Son. Lastly, Defendant Son argues the objections should be preserved because they have complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a) by serving responses in substantial compliance and the failure to timely serve was due to inadvertence and excusable neglect as Defendant Son was changing counsel at this time.

The court GRANTS the motions to compel discovery. While Defendant Son has now produced discovery responses, they are produced with objections, which have been waived due to their untimeliness. Defendant Son must make a motion for relief from waiver of objections as the oppositions are not considered motions. (See CCP §2030.290(a).)

Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $6,161.88, combined.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or production of documents, 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. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c).)

The court GRANTS the request for sanctions in the REDUCED amount of $2,000 payable within 30 days.