Case Number: VC063661    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: SEC

KANG v. FAN
CASE NO.: VC063661
HEARING: 07/10/14

#5
TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant CHI MING FAN’s motion to compel further responses to
special interrogatories is DENIED. C.C.P. § 2030.300.

II. Defendant CHI MING FAN’s motion to compel further responses to
demands for production of documents is DENIED. C.C.P. § 2031.310.

The subject motions have twice been continued by the Court in order for counsel to further meet and confer on the discovery issues raised. See Minute orders, 05/27/14, 06/17/14. They were unable to resolve their disputes. The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing and rules as follows.

Special interrogatories
Plaintiff asserts, as she did previously, that she is not in possession of the information sought because it was turned over to the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee appointed in Woori The Winner’s Inc. proceeding. It appears plaintiff produced some 300 pages of documents from the bankruptcy files and records.

Although plaintiff’s responses are not significantly better than they were previously, she has stated that she has conducted a diligent search and that she has responded to the interrogatories to the extent possible with the information available to her. The Court cannot compel anything further.

Requests for production
Plaintiff has represented that she has served all responsive documents within her possession. Defendant acknowledges that the responses are “arguably code compliant.” The Court has neither the ability nor the inclination to surmise what additional documents may exist.

If plaintiff failed to produce certain “foundational” documents, such as the agreement for the sale of the grocery store and documents related thereto, she will be unable to use those documents at trial. Defendant may seek the appropriate issue or evidentiary sanctions if it is discovered that plaintiff’s production was not complete. As it stands, the responses are in accordance with the Code. No further responses are ordered.

Defendant’s request that the documents already produced by Bates-stamped is denied for practical reasons.

Sanctions
Although defendant’s filing of the subject motions prompted additional responses, it was largely a fruitless endeavor. Plaintiff has maintained throughout the pendency of these motions that she does not possess responsive documents (although her earlier responses were craftily worded). Meet and confer should have effectively resolved the matter. For that reason, the Court is not inclined to find that either party acted with substantial justification and thus disinclined to award sanctions. The requests are denied.