Case Number: BC658424 Hearing Date: December 11, 2018 Dept: SEC

TRINH v. NGO

CASE NO.: BC658424

HEARING: 12/11/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant UU HORSE, INC.’s unopposed motion(s) to compel Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $966.00 ($213/hr. x 2 hrs.) + ($540 costs) no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN are ORDERED to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objection no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Defendant paid only one filing fee in connection with these motions. However, Defendant seeks nine separate orders. A separate filing fee is required for each. (Gov. Code §70617(a)(4).) No later than December 11, 2018, Plaintiff is ORDERED to make payment of an addition $480.00 to the Court clerk in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of December 7, 2018.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that nine sets of Form Interrogatories (set one) were properly and separately served onto Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN on November 2, 2017. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Defendant filed these motions on August 7, 2018, approximately nine months after service of the discovery. As of December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN have not filed Opposition(s) to Defendant’s motions. Therefore, the Motions to Compel are granted, and Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN are ordered to provide verified responses and documents without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiffs BACH TUYET TRUONG; SANG VANT RAN; KHAI NGUYEN; THANH NGUYEN; HONG DANG; SEN LE; HONG NGUYEN; AHN TRAN; and DAT TRAN do not oppose the instant motions to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that Plaintiffs acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.