Case Number: BC514742    Hearing Date: September 12, 2014    Dept: 73

Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

Korean American Seniors Coalition, etc. vs. Korean Senior Citizens Mutual Club, etc. (BC514742)

Counsel for plaintiff: Kyungsoo Park and Victoria Camilli (L.O. Park, etc.)
Counsel for defendant: Jeffre Lowe and John Baik (Lowe, etc.)

TENTATIVE RULINGS:
Matter #1: Motion of defendant to compel further responses (filed 4/25/14): Grant.
Matter #2: Motion of plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved (filed 7/2/14): Grant.

Matter #1: Motion of defendant to compel further responses (filed 4/25/14): GRANT.
Sanctions awarded against plaintiff in the amount of $2,310. In the 8/28/14 further response, Plaintiff argues the Defendant’s separate statement failed to show why any particular response was not appropriate and argues Defendant incorrectly cited an inapplicable Code section. However, here Plaintiff misses the point. The special interrogatories at issue asked for the identification of individuals and documents. Rather than identifying the relevant individuals or responsive documents, Plaintiff merely produced documents. This is not a valid response to the interrogatories propounded. To the extent it would be proper for Plaintiff to just produce documents in response to those interrogatories seeking the identification of documents, the 8/28/14 declaration does not affirmatively indicate these documents were produced.

As to the form interrogatories, in subpart (c) Plaintiff provided the names and addresses of individuals with the pertinent facts but failed to provide phone numbers. Further, as to each RFA addressed, Plaintiff stated “and all persons who were members over the years to the present.” Here, Plaintiff has not identified who these individuals are or how they can be contacted.

Matter #2: Motion of plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved (filed 7/2/14): The unopposed motion to be relieved (filed 7/2/14) is granted. Moving counsel is relieved effective upon filing of the proof of service of the order upon the client. The mandatory Judicial Council form order (MC-053) has been submitted and will be signed as modified to include all dates pending if not already so included. Moving counsel to give notice.

DISCUSSION (RE MOTION TO COMPEL)

On January 22, 2014, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff Korean American Seniors Coalition. (Baik Decl. ¶2, Exh. 1.) On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff served responses. (Baik Decl. ¶3, Exh. 2.) Determining that Plaintiff’s responses were deficient, counsel sent a meet and confer letter on April 1, 2014 but Plaintiff refused to provide supplemental responses. (Baik Decl. ¶¶4-6, Exh. 3-4.) On April 25, 2014, Defendant timely filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses. An opposition was filed on June 3, 2014 and a reply on June 9, 2014. The Court’s tentative for the original hearing held on 7/23/14 was to grant the motion conditionally. The Court continued the matter, noting Plaintiff should be given time to respond to the amended separate statement filed on 6/9/14 with the reply. On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a further response. An additional reply was filed on September 5, 2014.

Merits
Regarding the Form Interrogatories, Defendant seeks further response to No. 17.1, specifically, subparts (c) and (d) as they relate to certain requests for admission. In the supplemental opposition, Plaintiff argues that on June 3, 2014, it served supplemental responses. With respect to the answers provided as to RFA No. 14 and 15, Plaintiff has still provided no response to subparts (c) and (d), stating simply “this responding party is not able to respond.”

Subpart (c) seeks the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts supporting denials. With regard to RFA No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19, Plaintiff responded with the names and addresses of individuals. However, Plaintiff did not provide telephone numbers and concluded each response with the following – “and all persons who were members over the year to the present.” Plaintiff argues there is no further response to put forth, ignoring the fact that the requested contact information has not been provided for all individuals identified. Thus, despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, Plaintiff has not produced compliant responses.

Regarding the answer to subpart (d) as it relates to RFA No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19, (d) asks the responding party to identify “all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.” Plaintiff’s supplemental responses state “pursuant to CCP §2030.210(a)(2), this Responding Party will exercise its option to produce writings, if said writings have not already been produced by this Responding Party’s Request to Produce Documents.” This response and the opposition indicate Plaintiff’s counsel misunderstands the option to produce writings afforded in the discovery code. As the September 5, 2014 reply points out, the 8/28 opposition provides supplemental responses served on June 3, 2014. In those responses, Plaintiff provided the names and addresses of individuals with the pertinent facts, but failed to provide phone numbers. Further, as to each RFA addressed, Plaintiff stated “and all persons who were members over the years to the present.” Here, Plaintiff has not identified who these individuals are or how they can be contacted.

Where an interrogatory seeks information that would be contained in files and records, the responding party has a duty to provide a straightforward response. (CCP §2030.220(a).) Where an answer would require the responding party to produce a compilation or summary of information contained in documents, the responding party may exercise the option to allow the propounding party to inspect and copy the records. (CCP §2030.230.) When exercising this option, the responding party must demonstrate that a compilation or summary would be needed to answer the interrogatory, that such a compilation would have to be made, and that the burden or expense of making the compilation would be the same for the propounding party as the responding. (Id.) Further, the responding party must identify the records with sufficient particularity that they can easily be located. (See Fuss v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 273 CA2d 807, 815-817.) As the motion points out, this interrogatory subpart does not seek a response which would require a compilation.

As to Special Interrogatory No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63-66, 70-75, 77, 78, 80, and 81, Plaintiff responded with the same response quoted above with regard to subpart (d) of Form Interrogatory 17.1. None of the interrogatories propounded require a compilation. Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 26, 29, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 65, 71, 74, 77, 80 ask Plaintiff to identify documents supporting certain interrogatory responses. Nos. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 27, 30, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 72, 75, 78, 81 ask Plaintiff to identify each individual with personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s responses to certain interrogatories. Even assuming these interrogatories could be construed as calling for a compilation (which they don’t), the requirements for invoking this option have not been met. Nos. 64, 70, and 73 again ask for the identification of specific documents. As to No. 10 this is the only interrogatory that could conceivably ask for a compilation, but again, the requirements have not been met.

In the 8/28/14 further response, Plaintiff argues the Defendant’s separate statement failed to show why any particular response was not appropriate and argues Defendant incorrectly cited an inapplicable Code section. However, here Plaintiff misses the point. The interrogatories at issue asked for the identification of individuals and documents. Rather than identifying the relevant individuals or responsive documents, Plaintiff merely produced documents. This is not a valid response to the interrogatories propounded. To the extent it would be proper for Plaintiff to just produce documents in response to those interrogatories seeking the identification of documents, the 8/28/14 declaration does not affirmatively indicate these documents were produced.

Thus, the Court grants the motion. Further verified responses, without objection, must be served within 15 days.

Defendant also seeks $5,122.50 in sanctions. This is based on 17.25 hours of work related to these motions at an hourly rate of $375 plus the $60 filing fee. (Baik Decl. ¶7.) This amount is reduced to $2,310 (based on 6 hours of work and the $60 filing fee).

Unless waived, notice of ruling as to the motion to compel by defendant.