Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the court order below claimant is represented by attorney Brian Toppila. We believe the tentative ruling republished below became the final ruling of the court.

Case Number: BC681294 Hearing Date: April 05, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Peter Gwon,

Claimant,

v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Respondent.

Case No.: BC681294

Hearing Date: April 5, 2018

[Tentative] order RE:

Motion to compel further responses

On November 13, 2017, Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent”) filed two motions to compel further responses from Claimant Peter Gwon (“Claimant”) for: (1) form interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (2) request for production of documents, set one (“RPD”). An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held on February 27, 2018. The only remaining issue is the imposition of sanctions. Both parties request sanctions against the other for violations of the Discovery Act.

Respondent propounded discovery on Claimant on August 29, 2017. On September 28, 2017, Claimant served his responses, which, apart from his response to Form Interrogatory No. 1.01, contained only objections. In October of 2017, counsel for both parties exchanged correspondence regarding the responses. On November 13, 2017, Respondent filed two motions to compel further responses to the RPD and FROG and requested monetary sanctions totaling $7,000. Respondent also asked that Claimant’s counsel be ordered to read Appendix 3.A of the Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, which are the “Guidelines for Civility in Litigation.” On December 4, 2017, Claimant served further verified responses to the FROG and RPD. Both parties agree that these further responses are code compliant and moot the motions insofar as compelling further responses; both parties agree that no further responses are necessary.

However, in his opposition to the instant motions, Claimant asks for sanctions for Respondent’s failure to meet and confer in good faith. In the reply, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the responses, but continued to insist on the imposition of sanctions. At the IDC on February 27, 2018, the parties could not come to an agreement as to the requests for sanctions. Therefore, the parties filed a Joint Statement on March 14, 2018 appraising the Court of the outstanding issues and arguments.

Respondent argues that it is entitled to sanctions under CCP §§ 2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h). Both of these sections state that the Court “shall” impose sanctions against any party that makes or opposes a motion to compel further “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.” (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).)

Here, the Court finds that Respondent’s motions to compel further were warranted. Claimant’s initial responses were limited to objections, which were largely unjustified. For example, Form Interrogatory No. 2.10 asks “Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use?” Claimant’s response was a list of objections including that the interrogatory was “overly broad and remote,” “calls for information which is available to all parties equally,” and that this information “is personal and private.” A party must answer discovery requests in good faith, and should not make objections without substantial justification. Making unmeritorious objection is a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010.) No substantive answers were provided in the initial responses to the RPD and FROG, and Claimant initially refused to produce further responses until after the filing of these motions. Therefore, Respondent was justified in brining motions to compel further responses.

The Court finds Claimant’s unmeritorious objections and failure to timely provide further responses a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Claimant and his counsel. However, the $7,000 request for sanctions is excessive. The Court grants sanctions for 2 hours to prepare the motions, at $185.00 per hour,[1] plus two $60 filing fees, and the $486.95 for the first paper fee[2] for a total of $976.95. Claimant Peter Gwon and his counsel Brian Toppila are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $976.95 to Respondent, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Claimant requests sanctions for Respondent’s failure to meet and confer in good faith. In addition, Claimant points out several actions and behaviors by Respondent’s counsel that are violations of various sections of the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules in Appendix 3.A. In the opposition and joint statement, Claimant’s Counsel cites to and airs many grievances that counsel has with Respondent’s counsel. Regardless of the litany of issues between both counsel—which appears to the Court to result from the fault of both counsel and is not solely attributable to either alone—Claimant has not shown a failure to meet and confer on the part of Respondent. Respondent sent initial letters requesting further responses on October 13, 2017. The parties the exchanged correspondence on this issue multiple times for the rest of October. Therefore, the Court finds that a meet and confer did occur before the motions to compel further were filed.

Finally, the pleadings of both parties make clear that the tenor that both Counsel have adopted has been less than exemplary. Therefore, the Court declines to award any sanctions against either counsel based on alleged violations of the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules in Appendix 3.A

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Respondent’s request for sanctions in the amount of $976.95. Claimant Peter Gwon and his counsel Brian Toppila are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $976.95 to Respondent, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Claimant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Respondent is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: April 5, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] According to the Toshci Declaration (at ¶¶ 29-31), an associate did all the work preparing the motion. Therefore, the associate’s hourly rate will be used to calculate the sanctions.

[2] This matter was only opened in order to file this motion. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to award this fee as well.