Case Number: VC062571    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: SEC

CHOU v. LI
CASE NO.: VC062571
HEARING: 07/10/14

#3
TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant LI YUAN LI’s motion to compel further responses
to special interrogatories (set two) is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 2030.300.

II. Defendant LI YUAN LI’s motion to compel further responses
to requests for production of documents (set two) is GRANTED.
C.C.P. § 2031.310.

III. Defendant LI YUAN LI’s motion to compel plaintiff YUAN YUAN
CHOU to appear for deposition and produce documents is GRANTED.
C.C.P. § 2025.450.

Plaintiff YUAN YUAN CHOU is ORDERED to serve further responses to the written discovery (I. & II.) no later than July 25, 2014.

Plaintiff YUAN YUAN CHOU is also ORDERED to appear for deposition and produce the documents sought in the notice on a mutually agreed-upon date no later than July 25, 2014.

Plaintiff CHOU and her counsel of record are ORDERED to pay to defendant and his counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $2,280 (which represents 6 hours of attorney time at $350/hr. and three filing fees at $60 each), no later than August 11, 2014.

This action is consolidated with two actions which were filed in Pomona (KC064803 and KC065165). The Pomona cases are personal injury/tort matters arising from an altercation between the parties at a dance club. The subject action involves an alleged investment scheme related to Guppy House entities, of which plaintiff was the victim.

I. & II. Special interrogatories and demands for production
The written discovery was propounded in April 2014, and plaintiff served responses on May 8, 2014. The responses consist entirely of objections. Despite defendant’s attorney granting plaintiff additional time to serve supplemental responses, none were received. These motions followed.

Both the special interrogatories and the demands for production seek factual (and documentary support) for the contentions in the operative Second Amended Complaint. Contention interrogatories and production requests are proper. See, e.g. Singer v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 218.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant propounded the same discovery requests (sets one) in June 2013. Plaintiff served objections and defendant did not pursue further responses within the 45-day statutory period. Defendant is not permitted to re-serve the same discovery to avoid the 45-day jurisdictional time limit. Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490. While plaintiff correctly states the rule, the Court finds that the subject requests (set two) are substantially different from those in sets one. The SAC was filed in September 2013, after sets one of the discovery was propounded. The requests themselves, while there may be some overlap, differ from the prior discovery enough so as not to bar defendant from obtaining further responses.

The Court is also unpersuaded by plaintiff’s objection to the volume of the questions posed. While there are 215 special interrogatories, the number of subjects they cover is far less. For any given allegation in the SAC, defendant seeks facts, persons who have knowledge of the facts, and identification of documents supporting those facts. The interrogatories overlap with the demands for production, by which defendant seeks production of the documents identified in the responses to the interrogatories. In any event, plaintiff could have sought a protective order but instead elected to assert boilerplate objections to each of the requests. In opposition to the motions, plaintiff made no showing as to how the discovery is oppressive or burdensome. “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 418.

For those reasons, the Court finds that defendant is entitled to further responses by the date noted above. Plaintiff did not respond to any of the discovery requests, and filed the subject opposition without substantial justification. Sanctions are awarded in favor of defendant as noted above.

III. Compel deposition
Plaintiff appeared for the first session of her deposition in April 2013. Counsel agreed the deposition would be continued but, despite defendant’s efforts to schedule an additional session, plaintiff has not appeared.

Defendant re-noticed the deposition on April 11, 2014 for April 23, 2014. Plaintiff apparently served an objection thereto (although it is not attached to the motion). In any event, she failed to appear.

Plaintiff did not file opposition to this motion. There appears to be no ground for her to do so. She is ordered to appear for deposition and produce the documents requested by the date noted above.