Motion to compel further responses
These motions were filed by Plaintiffs David Hoshour and Wensun Chen, who are in pro per. (ROA 60, 68.)
Notably, in support of the Motions is a declaration by “Mark J. Kizer” who is “assisting Plaintiffs DAVID GUY HOSHOUR and WENSUN CHEN in this matter.” (Declaration of Kizer para.1.) While Mr. Kizer indicates he has “personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and could competently testify thereto”, he fails to indicate how, or whether he is an attorney.
Where a response has been made to an RPD, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. [CCP § 2031.310]
This motion can be utilized to attack a response containing: • Objections; or • An agreement to comply that is incomplete; or • A statement of inability to comply that is incomplete or evasive. [CCP § 2031.310(a)]
Plus, a response stating inability to comply with the CCP § 2031.010 demand shall state the following: • That a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded; and • The reason the party is unable to comply: e.g., the document: — never existed; or — has been lost or stolen; or — has been destroyed; or — is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the document. [CCP § 2031.230]
Additionally, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers (or further answers) to the interrogatories. [CCP §§ 2030.290
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, on October 11, 2025 Plaintiffs served RPDS, Set 1 and Form Rogs, Set 1. (Decl. Kizer¶2.)
As to the RPDS, Defendant did not serve responses until December 16, 2025, responding only that, “I am currently not in possession of any of the requested documents.”
This response does not comply with CCP § 2031.230 as set forth above.
As to the Form Rogs, Plaintiff provided no response whatsoever.
As such, the Motions are GRANTED. Defendant to provide code compliant, supplemental, verified responses to the RPDS, Set 1 within 20 days of notice of this Court’s ruling. Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Rogs, Set 1, without objections, within the same time.
As to Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, sanctions are denied for failure to identify the sanctions in the notices of motion. [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.]
Plaintiffs to give notice 207 Labor Commissioner of the State of California, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement vs. Devank, LLC, 24-01420136 James H. Millane of Lanak & Hanna, P.C. (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Titan Construction and Development.
The motion is unopposed and Moving Attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. All other requirements of the applicable California Rules of Court are satisfied.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The order relieving counsel will be effective upon counsel filing proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).)
Moving Attorney to give notice.