Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24AHCV00344, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00344    Hearing Date: November 27, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On February 20, 2024, plaintiffs Henry Huang (“Plaintiff”) and Powastar, Inc. filed this action against defendants Xiaoyan Chen (“Defendant”), Junyi Zhou, Shalom K. Braunstein, and Elite Asian Art Auction, LLC. On July 5, 2024, Defendant served Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff. No responses were received. On August 14, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel responses and for sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that responses were served on August 21, 2024, as soon as he was aware that discovery requests had been served. Plaintiff spends most of his 16-page opposition brief arguing that Defendant acted unfairly because Defendant did not serve her discovery requests using a new email thread, but instead chose to “reply” to an existing unrelated thread and attach the new discovery requests to that reply email. Plaintiff asserts that he did not become aware of the discovery requests until August 21, 2024, but promptly served responses on that same day. Therefore, as responses have been served, the motion to compel is DENIED as MOOT.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Sanctions may be awarded under in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (CRC 3.1348.) 

Plaintiff expends a great deal of effort to avoid monetary sanctions by submitting a lengthy discussion of the appropriate protocols for email service and the definition of the word “reply.” This effort is unavailing and does not excuse Plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of diligence in monitoring their email inbox. The body of the “reply” email clearly announced that Defendant’s discovery requests were attached. (Opp., Ex. 4.) Furthermore, despite emphasizing the purported importance of having separate email threads, the subject line for the email thread initiated by Plaintiff’s counsel merely says, “CASE NO. 24AHCV00344” without any mention of Plaintiff’s attached discovery requests, therefore undercutting any claim that Defendant somehow acted inappropriately by “replying” to this unspecified thread with her own discovery requests. (Opp., Exs. 1, 4.) Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, albeit in the reduced amount of $461.65, consisting of 1 hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $400 and a $61.65 filing fee. Sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Last, Defendant points out in her reply brief that Plaintiff cites to two cases which appear to be nonexistent, Johnson v. City of Shoreline (2010) 240 Cal.App.4th 125, and Martinez v. State (2013) 222 Cal.App.3d 1026. (Opp., pp. 8-9.) Therefore, the Court schedules an OSC for December 4, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and orders Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why they should not be reported to the State Bar for violating their duty of candor (Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.3) by citing to manufactured case law.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 27th day of November 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.