Case Number: TC028916 Hearing Date: December 11, 2018 Dept: A

# 9. Ok Joo Kim v. Chong Kun Pak and T-Rage Corp.

Case No.: TC028916

Matter on calendar for: motion to compel (1x) and motions to compel further (2x)

Tentative ruling:

I. Background

This action is based on fraud. Plaintiff Ok Joo Kim, in pro per, alleges that defendants Chong Kun Pak and T-Rage Corp. provided her with checks that were either returned for insufficient funds or otherwise not honored by the bank. Kim seeks $134,000 in damages.

Defendants’ current motions:

1) Motion to compel responses to request for production, Set One

2) Motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, Set One

3) Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, Set One

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions.

II. Standard

a. Motion to compel production

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 allows a propounding party to move to compel responses to a request for production when a party fails to timely respond.

b. Motion to compel further

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 allows a propounding party to move to compel further responses to interrogatories if: “(1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (C.C.P., § 2030.300(a).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

III. Analysis

a. Motion to compel production

Kim was served with a request for production in September but has failed to serve responses. The motion to compel production is granted. Kim has waived any objection to the demand under C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)

b. Motion to compel further

i. Form interrogatories

Defendants seek further responses to form interrogatories numbers 12.1–12.3, 12.6, and 50.1–50.3. A review of Kim’s responses shows that the answers are inadequate. Kim asserts objections on two fronts: 1) irrelevant interrogatory or 2) repeatable questions. These objections are overruled. The interrogatories are relevant and although the questions are similar, they are not repetitive.

The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is granted.

ii. Special interrogatories

Defendants seek further responses to form interrogatories numbers 6, 10, and 12–29. Kim makes the following objections: 1) ask and answered, 2) repeated question to the complaint 3) overbroad. These objections are inadequate. The responses to numbers 28 and 29 are unresponsive.

The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is granted.

IV. Ruling

The motion to compel production is granted. Kim has waived any objection to the demand under C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)

The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, numbers 12.1–12.3, 12.6, and 50.1–50.3, is granted.

The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, numbers 6, 10, and 12–29, is granted.

Responses are due in 20 days.

The requests for sanctions are denied. Sanctions on these motions would be unjust in these circumstances.