This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/04/2020 at 09:54:18 (UTC).

BENJAMIN LIEU VS MIAO JING

Case Summary

On 02/04/2019 BENJAMIN LIEU filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MIAO JING. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1255

  • Filing Date:

    02/04/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LIEU BENJAMIN

Defendant

JING MIAO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DUNHAM DONALD TILDON

Defendant Attorney

CADENA MEGAN A.

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

11/1/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/1/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/18/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Set Two

1/14/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Set Two

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

1/28/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

6/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/10/2020

6/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/10/2020

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

3/11/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Answer - Answer

3/11/2019: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Filing Proof of Service

2/27/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Filing Proof of Service

Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

2/19/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/4/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

2/4/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/4/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/4/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/4/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/4/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/07/2022
  • Hearing02/07/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Hearing03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/10/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 03/29/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 01/28/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/28/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • DocketOpposition to Motion to Compel to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Set Two; Filed by: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketSubpoena & Proof of Service; Filed by: Benjamin Lieu (Plaintiff); As to: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Benjamin Lieu (Plaintiff); As to: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Benjamin Lieu (Plaintiff); As to: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Benjamin Lieu (Plaintiff); As to: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Benjamin Lieu (Plaintiff); As to: Miao Jing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01255    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Benjamin Lieu (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Miao Jing (“Defendant”). On March 11, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff served on Defendant Form Interrogatories, Set Two, by mail. (Mot., Dunham Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Defendant responded to the discovery request on October 9, 2019 by mail. (Oppo., Kashani Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.) On October 29, 2019, Defendant provided further responses. (Mot., Dunham Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 4.)

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Miao Jing to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On January 14, 2020, Defendant filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Each answer to a propounded interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) If the interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) If the responding party does not have “personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that “(a) [a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete or “ (3) [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

In addition, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

III. Discussion

  1. Further Responses

Plaintiff’s seeks to compel further responses to Defendant’s October 9, 2019 Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, numbers 116.3, 116.4, and 116.5. (Mot., Separate Statement (“SS”).) Defendant’s initial responses were unverified and consisted of objections that the requests were premature, called for expert opinion, and violated the attorney-work product privilege. (Mot., SS, p. 2-3, 6-7, 9-10.) Without waiving the stated objections, Defendant also answered that he had “no personal knowledge as to the extent of plaintiff’s alleged injuries,” or “as to the cost of medical services, if any, purportedly furnished by plaintiff’s health care providers.” (Id.) After receiving Plaintiff’s counsel’s October 16, 2019 meet and confer letter, Defendant provided further responses to the three interrogatories, which were also unverified.

Plaintiff’s Motion is timely, and it is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b).

However, the Court is not persuaded that this Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses is proper given that both Defendant’s initial interrogatory responses and further responses were not verified under oath as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250, subdivision (a).) Indeed, unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and the propounded party is subject to a motion to compel responses—rather than a motion to compel further responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) Plaintiff should have brought a motion to compel discovery responses.

  1. Sanctions

Defendant requests that this Court issue sanctions of $585.00 against Plaintiff “as a consequence of unsuccessfully making this motion, without substantial justification.” (Oppo., p. 8:6-8.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states that the “court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) (Italics added.) The Court is not persuaded that sanctions in this case should be imposed. Because Defendant’s discovery responses were deficient, the Court finds that it would be unjust to impose sanctions against Plaintiff because it filed an incorrect, though related, motion as a result of those deficiencies.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.