Case Number: BC514742    Hearing Date: July 23, 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 plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved (filed 7/2/14): Continue.
Matter #2: Motion of defendant to compel further responses (filed 4/25/14): Grant, conditionally.

Matter #1: Motion of plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved (filed 7/2/14): Continue, due to untimely notice, or hear and grant if waiver obtained.
On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff Korean American Seniors Coalition’s attorneys, Kyungsoo Park (SBN: 176628) and Victoria M. Camilli (SBN: 88872) of the Law Offices of Park & Associates filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is unopposed. While not precisely clear, the motion appears to be made on behalf of the law firm and not the individual attorneys. The proof of service of the motion shows inadequate service (not 16 court days). Unless the client waives statutory notice, the motion should be continued (or denied without prejudice). The motion is otherwise ready to be heard and should be granted.

Matter #2: Motion of defendant to compel further responses (filed 4/25/14): Grant, conditionally. Plaintiff’s opposition complains of the lack of a complete separate statement, which is undisputed. Moving party’s submission, on 6/9/14, of a “first amended” separate statement cures the procedural problem, but should allow plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The motion can be continued for that purpose. However if plaintiff makes no such request, the motion is granted and sanctions in the amount of $2,310 are awarded against plaintiff.

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.

Separate Statement
Courts have discretion to deny discovery motions where a filed separate statement lacks the content and format required by the California Rules of Court. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 (applying former CRC Rule 335, since renumbered 3.1345).) CRC 3.1345(c) provides that a separate statement must include the text of the interrogatory, the text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; and a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute. It is well taken that Defendant’s separate statement does not comply with these requirements. However, despite the opposition’s insistence that the motion be denied on this basis, the motion provides the interrogatories propounded making it possible for the Court to consider the interrogatories and the merits of Plaintiff’s responses. As noted, the reply offers a “first amended” separate statement complying with CRC 3.1345. This document was filed on 6/9/14 and the motion was continued from 6/16/14 to this date. Plaintiff has not sought to file any additional opposition.

Merits
Regarding the Form Interrogatories, Defendant seeks further response to the No. 17.1. Specifically subparts (c) and (d) as they relate to certain requests for admission. With respect to the answers provided as to RFA No. 14 and 15, Plaintiff provided no response to subparts (c) and (d). 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, 16, 18, and 19, Plaintiff responded “all persons who were members over the year to the present.” The opposition admits these responses are deficient but argues Defendant is at fault for refusing to seek an extension for filing this motion to permit Plaintiff more time to obtain supplemental responses from Plaintiff’s elderly members. 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 responded stating “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.

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. 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 do not), 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.

Thus, the court grants the motion to compel further responses to the identified requests. Plaintiff shall serve answers without objection within 30 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 is reduced to $2,310 (based on 6 hours of work and the $60 filing fee) based on what the court considers reasonably necessary for this motion.

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