Lee v. Vinfast Auto LLC

Plaintiff Kevin Lee moves to compel Defendant to:

• Serve further responses to special interrogatory nos. 1-5, 9-12, 15-18, and 24-36, • Serve further responses to form interrogatory nos. 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 15.1, and 17.1, • Serve further responses to requests for admission nos. 8, 9, 11, and 13, • Remove all general objections made in the preliminary statement for each of these sets of discovery, • Sign all responses under oath, and • Remove meritless specific objections to the discovery at issue.

On a motion to compel, the responding party has the burden of establishing a valid objection, including any claim of privilege. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for

other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (CCP 2031.240 (c)(1)).

Here, Defendant has failed to file an opposition that justifies the validity of Defendant’s objections to these discovery requests and/or substantiate any privilege claims. In addition, it is axiomatic that the failure to challenge a contention in a brief result in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 562, 566 (“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”); Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 507, 529 (“failure to address the threshold question . . . effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”); Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1424 (issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).)

For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, requests for admission, set one, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to the discovery at issue, without objection, with verifications under oath, within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for each of these motions.

The Civil Procedure Code requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (d)).

California Rules of Court rule 3.1348 further provides that “[t]he 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Here, Defendant’s conduct necessitated the filing of these three successful motions to compel further responses. Defendant has failed to show that Defendant has acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The court, therefore, will grant sanctions, but finds that the amount of sanctions requested by Plaintiff to be excessive given the straightforward nature of the these motions. As such, the court finds that $800 in sanctions per motion is appropriate. The court imposes monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $2,400, payable by July 02, 2026.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (ROA #29)

Plaintiff moves to order Defendant to serve further responses to requests for production nos. 24, 25, 28, 32, 33, 36, and 37.

Unlike other discovery devices, the legislature placed the initial onus and burden on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production on the party serving the requests for production.

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall” set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case), and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop.

Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Specifically, the moving party can also show good cause by “identify[ing] a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain[ing] how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531].)

Arguments made in the moving papers or in a separate statement are insufficient to satisfy this requirement; good cause must be shown by way of admissible evidence, such as by declaration. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [motion to compel production of documents must be supported by factual evidence by way of declarations setting forth specific facts justifying each category of materials sought to be produced; arguments in a separate statement or in briefs are insufficient].)

If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure— the same as on motions to compel responses to interrogatories or deposition questions. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Here, Plaintiff has not met its initial burden of establishing good cause. The declaration of Kevin Faulk, counsel for Plaintiff, fails to address the requests for production at issue and why good cause exists to justify the discovery being sought. Why the moving memorandum may have addressed the requests for production at issue, arguments made in the moving papers does not constitute admissible evidence to meet Plaintiff’s good cause burden. Because Plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden, the burden failed to shift to Defendant to justify any objections.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED as to requests for production, set one.

Plaintiff to give notice.

5 Saba v. Tayyan Motion for Summary Judgment, or, alternatively, Summary Adjudication

7