This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 13:50:16 (UTC).

ANDREW YONG AHN VS VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/24/2017 ANDREW YONG AHN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0875

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MONICA BACHNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

AHN ANDREW YONG

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL KOREA INC

VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL INC

SUE HYUN CHANG LIFE ESTATE TRUST

VOLUMECOCOMOA APPAREL CAMBODIA INC

VOLUMENCOCOMO APPAREL SHANGHAI CO. LTD

VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL INC OF NEW YORK

CHANG HYO SIK

COCOVOL APPAREL CAMBODIA INC

CHANG CHRISTOPHER

CHANG SUSIE SUEHYUN

COCOVOL APPAREL CAMBODIA INC.

CHANG SUEHYUN AKA SUE HYUN CHANG AKA SUHYUN CHANG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

KIM RONALD G. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PARKER MILLS LLP

LEE ANAV CHUNG WHITE KIM RUGER & RICHTER

RUGER RICHARD M.

PARKER DAVID BRUCE

Cross Defendant Attorney

BECK JAMES K. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/2/2018: Minute Order

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 3. REMOVAL OF DIRECTOR [CORP. CODE 304] 4. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS 5. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAUTH AND FAI

3/12/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 3. REMOVAL OF DIRECTOR [CORP. CODE 304] 4. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS 5. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAUTH AND FAI

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; MEET AND CONFER DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. WANG

4/13/2018: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; MEET AND CONFER DECLARATION OF STEVEN S. WANG

Minute Order

6/11/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

8/7/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/26/2018: Unknown

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, ETC

9/26/2018: THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, ETC

Cross-Complaint

11/13/2018: Cross-Complaint

Answer

11/13/2018: Answer

Answer

11/13/2018: Answer

Answer

1/4/2019: Answer

DEFENDANTS VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

1/24/2018: DEFENDANTS VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

1/24/2018: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Unknown

12/7/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/7/2017: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC

12/15/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

12/15/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

SUMMONS

10/24/2017: SUMMONS

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice (of Continuation of Trial Date and Post Mediation Status Conference); Filed by VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL KOREA INC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 2:08 PM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Stipulation for Continuance of Trial Date and Post-Mediation Status Conference; Filed by VOLUMENCOCOMO APPAREL SHANGHAI CO., LTD (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (COURT ORDER) of 04/23/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (COURT ORDER)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER); Filed by Christopher Chang (Cross-Complainant); Susie Suehyun Chang (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Answer; Filed by ANDREW YONG AHN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Answer; Filed by ANDREW YONG AHN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Answer; Filed by ANDREW YONG AHN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Answer; Filed by ANDREW YONG AHN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
110 More Docket Entries
  • 12/07/2017
  • DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER CHANG AND SUSIE SUEHYUN CHANG'S JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS VOLUME COCOMO APPAREL, INC., VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC. OF NEW YORK, VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL SHANGHAI CO., LTD., VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL CAMBODIA, INC., AND COCOVOL APPAREL CAMBODIA, I

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • PLAINTIFF ANDREW YONG AHN'S OPPOSITION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC., VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC. OF NEW YORK, VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL KOREA INC., VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL SH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-12-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF BRANDON P. BROUSSEAU IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • COMPLAINT 1. RREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ANDREW YONG AHN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680875    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 71

Defendant Christopher Chang’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and (Set Two) is denied as moot.

Chang’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is denied as moot. Defendant Chang’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Defendant Volumecocomo Apparel, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is granted.

Volumecocomo’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is granted only as to the requested verifications and is otherwise denied as moot.

Volumecocomo’s motion to compel compliance with Request for Production (Set Two) is granted. Volumecocomo’s requests for sanctions against Plaintiff are granted in the reduced total amount of $5,850.

Five discovery motions are presently before the Court. Defendant Christopher Chang brings two motions to compel Plaintiff Andrew Young Ahn’s further responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production and Defendant Volumecocomo Apparel, Inc. brings two motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories and a motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with Requests for Production.

  1. Motions Brought by Defendant Christopher Chang

    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

    Defendant Christopher Chang (“Chang”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Andrew Young Ahn (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and (Set Two) (“SI”). Specifically, Chang moves to compel further responses to Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, and 91 and (Set Two) Nos. 116, 120, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, and 138. (See Separate Statement.) Chang also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $6,300. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

    As a preliminary matter, the Declaration of Jay J. Chung (“Chung”) in support of the motion does not have numerated paragraphs; however, for the purposes of referring to the declaration in this motion, the Court will assume standard numeration. In addition, in his separate statement in support of his reply, Chang notes that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to Set Two Nos. 134, 135, 136, 137, and 138 are sufficient and as such, these requests are no longer at issue. (Reply, pg. 2; Reply-Separate Statement, pgs. 42-45.)

    By way of background, this action arises from a former business relationship between Plaintiff, Chang, and Defendant Susie Chang (“Susie”) (collectively, “Chang Defendants”), who together formed multiple business entities including Defendants VolumeCocomo Apparel, Inc. (“VA”), VolumeCocomo Apparel, Inc. of New York (“VA NY”), VolumeCocomo Apparel Shanghai Co. Ltd. (“VA Shanghai”), VolumeCocomo Apparel Cambodia, Inc. (“VA Cambodia”), Cocovol Apparel Cambodia, Inc. (“CA Cambodia”), VolumeCocomo Apparel Korea, Inc. (“VA Korea”) (collectively, “Entity Defendants”). On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against the Entity Defendants and the Chang Defendants, as individuals and as trustees of the Sue Huyn Chang Life Estate Trust (“the Trust”). After substituting new counsel, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on September 26, 2018.

    Chang served Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff on March 19, 2019, and Plaintiff submitted responses on May 24, 2019. (Decl. of Chung ¶¶3, 4; Exhs. 1, 3.) On September 10, 2019, Chang served Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on Plaintiff, and on October 18, 2019, Plaintiff submitted responses. (Decl. of Chung ¶¶3, 4; Exhs. 2, 4.) On November 26, 2019, Chang’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s defective responses to both sets of interrogatories, and on December 20, 2019, Chang’s counsel received a letter from Plaintiff agreeing to provide further responses to Nos. 79-85, 87, 91, and 93 in Set One and Nos. 116, 120, 123-125, 132-137 in Set Two. (Decl. of Chung ¶¶5, 6; Exhs. 5, 6.) On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to both sets of special interrogatories; however, Chang’s counsel asserts that the responses did not include supplemental responses to Nos 132-137, as agreed to by Plaintiff, and that the supplemental responses remain incomplete, evasive, nonresponsive, or otherwise improper. (Decl. of Chung ¶¶7-8; Exhs. 7, 8.) On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff served further responses to Special Interrogatories Sets One and Two. (Decl. of Beck ¶13, Exh. 4.)

    In his April 4, 2020 opposition, Plaintiff argues that he was unable to provide supplemental responses to the at-issue requests until the Chang Defendants and Entity Defendants produced financial documents on March 16, 2020 and March 17, 2020, including general ledgers of the Entity Defendants. (First Opposition, pg. 6.) Plaintiff asserts that he could not provide complete responses to the at-issue discovery requests without first reviewing the general ledgers of the Entity Defendants, and that if Plaintiff had been in possession of these documents, he would have been able to provide complete responses to Defendants’ discovery requests previously. (First Opposition, pgs. 6-8.) Plaintiff filed a second opposition on June 19, 2020, in which he raises the same arguments that he asserts in his first opposition, and further argues that on May 13, 2020, he provided further responses to the at-issue Special Interrogatories, making Chang’s motion moot. (Second Opposition, pg. 9; Decl. of Beck ¶12, Exh. 4.) In reply, Chang asserts that the further responses provided by Plaintiff on May 13, 2020 did not correct the concerns at issue in the instant motion and the motion is not moot. (Reply, pg. 2; Reply Separate Statement.)

    Chang’s motion to compel further responses is denied as moot. Plaintiff served untimely supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories on May 13, 2020, before the hearing on the instant motion. While Chang argues these supplemental responses are insufficient and warrant a Court order compelling a further response, the sufficiency of the supplemental responses is not at issue in Chang’s motion, and Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to oppose Chang’s arguments regarding their sufficiency. To the extent Chang finds the responses to be insufficient, he is entitled to file a motion to compel further responses.

    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

    Chang moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). Chang also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,950. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.) Specifically, Chang moves for an order compelling further response to Requests for Production Nos. 110, 121-125, 128, 135-140, 147, 148-163. (See Separate Statement.)

    As a preliminary matter, Chang’s separate statement in support of his reply indicates that, in light of the supplemental responses Plaintiff served on May 13, 2020, only Nos. 147-153 remain in dispute.

    Chang’s motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production is denied as moot. Plaintiff served untimely supplemental responses to the Requests on May 13, 2020, before the hearing on the instant motion. While Chang argues these supplemental responses are deficient, the sufficiency of the supplemental responses is not at issue in Chang’s motion, and Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to oppose Chang’s arguments regarding their sufficiency. To the extent Chang finds the responses to be insufficient, he is entitled to file a motion to compel further responses.

    Requests for Sanctions

    Chang requests monetary sanctions in connection with his motions in the total amount of $11,250, reflecting 14 hours (7 hours in preparing the Special Interrogatories (“SI”) motion and 7 hours anticipated to prepare the reply and appear at the hearing) and 11 hours (6 hours preparing the Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) motion and 5 hours anticipated to prepare the reply and appear at the hearing) at the rate of $450 per hour. (SI-Decl. of Chang ¶9; RFP-Decl. of Chang ¶7.)

    The Court notes that, notwithstanding its rulings on the motions, Chang’s requests for sanctions remain at issue. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).)

    In his oppositions, Plaintiff submits no argument as to the sanctions requested by Chang in connection with either the SI or the RFP motion. In each opposition, Plaintiff argues that Chang’s motions were premature because the parties did not participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), as the Court suggested, which would have resulted in the March 16 and March 17 document production by Entity Defendants to occur sooner. (Second SI-Opposition, pg. 8; RFP-Opposition, pg. 6, fn. 1.) In his replies, Chang argues that Plaintiff has no excuse or justification for failing to provide further responses in compliance with the discovery statutes. (SI-Reply, pg. 6; RFP-Reply, pg. 3.) However, in reply, Chang does not address Plaintiff’s argument that he was unable to submit complete discovery responses until receipt of discovery from Entity Defendants.

    Given Plaintiff’s assertions that he was unable to submit complete discovery responses until receiving his own discovery from Entity Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification such that sanctions are not warranted. (Second SI-Opposition, pg. 6; C.C.P. §§2031.310(h), 2030.300(d).)

    Based on the foregoing, Chang’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

    Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, Chang’s motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and (Set Two) and Requests for Production are denied as moot. Chang’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

  2. Motions Brought by Volumecocomo Apparel, Inc.

    Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production (Set Two)

    Defendant Volumecocomo Apparel, Inc. (“VA”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance with Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 52-61. VA also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,500. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §2031.320.)

    C.C.P. §2031.320(a) provides that, “[i]f a party filing a response to a [request for production] thereafter fails to [produce the documents] in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

    VA submitted evidence that it propounded Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 5-70 on Plaintiff on August 30, 3019, that Plaintiff thereafter served written responses and production of documents, and that Plaintiff’s written responses to Nos. 52 to 61 indicated that Plaintiff would comply and produce all documents within his possession, custody, or control. VA Submitted evidence that, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s agreement to comply, responsive documents to Nos. 52 to 61 were not produced by Plaintiff as of the date of filing the instant motion. (Decl. of Wang ¶¶2-6.) Requests Nos. 52-55 seek all communications between Plaintiff and the IRS that relate to certain Entity Defendants, Nos 56-60 seek all communications between Plaintiff and the FTB that relate to certain Entity Defendants and No. 61 seeks all documents relating to the income from VCA that Plaintiff reported to the IRS. (Decl. of Wang, Exh. 1.) In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that all documents responsive to Nos. 52 to 61 were produced by Plaintiff on October 18, 2019, and that within the produced documents were tax return documents which constitute the only communications between Plaintiff and the IRS and the FTB in Plaintiff’s possession. (Opposition, pg. 5, Decl. of Beck ¶12.) [The Court notes that the opposition itself incorrectly refers to a production date of October 18, 2020. (Opposition, pg. 6.)] In reply, VA argues that contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, he did not produce documents responsive to Nos. 52 to 61 via his production of VA’s tax return documents in October 2019, since the requests seek Plaintiff’s communications and documents relating to Plaintiff’s income. (Reply, pgs. 2-4.)

    VA is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s production of documents responsive to Requests Nos. 52 to 61 in accordance with Plaintiff’s statement of compliance, to the extent such documents exist in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control.

    Based on the foregoing, VA’s motion to compel compliance is granted.

    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two)

    VA moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) Nos. 5-10, 12-17, 26-30, 40-45, and 52-61. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; Motion, pg. 4; Separate Statement.) In addition, VA requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,050. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

    As a preliminary matter, the numeration of the at-issue requests in VA’s separate statement is incorrect. In numbering the requests, the Court relies on the number referenced in “Reason why further response to request for production… should be compelled” in the separate statement, the numeration set forth in the motion, and the numeration set forth in the reply.

    VA is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to produce further code-compliant responses to the at-issue requests for production. VA submitted evidence that Plaintiff’s responses to Nos. 5-10, 13, 16-17, 26-30, 40-45, and 52-61 include statements of compliance that are not in accord with C.C.P. §2031.210(a) since they condition Plaintiff’s compliance on VA’s payment of production costs. (Motion, pgs. 5-6; Decl. of Wang, Exh. 2 [“Responding party will comply and produce all documents within his possession, custody or control that he believes to be in compliance to this particular request upon this propounding party's agreement to bear the cost.”].)

    VA also submitted evidence that Plaintiff’s responses to Nos. 14-15 and 46-51 are not code compliant. Specifically, in response to these requests, Plaintiff responded “None”, which does not comply with the requirements for stating an inability to comply under C.C.P. §2031.230. (Motion, pgs. 6-7; Decl. of Wang, Exh. 2; See C.C.P. §2031.230 [“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”].)

    Plaintiff’s argument in opposition that he has provided all responsive documents in his possession on October 18, 2019, rendering the issues raised in the motion moot is without merit and fails to address the issues raised in the motion. (Opposition, pg. 7.) As discussed above, Plaintiff’s responses are not code-compliant, and VA accordingly moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses that are code compliant. Plaintiff’s October 18, 2019 production does not moot the issues raised in the motion. In addition, as noted in reply, no further responses have been served to VA’s requests for production. (Reply, pg. 3.) VA is entitled to code-compliant responses to the requests for production.

    Based on the foregoing, VA’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is granted.

    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

    VA moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 176, 186-198, 207-212, and for Plaintiff to provide verifications to his February 14, 2020 Supplemental Responses to Nos. 183-185, 201-205. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; Motion, pg. 4.) VA also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,850. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2023.010.)

    As a preliminary matter, the numeration of VA’s separate statement is incorrect. In numbering the requests, the Court relies on the numbers referenced in the motion and reply, which appear to correspond to the numbers set forth in “Reason why further response… should be compelled.”

    VA’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 176, 186-198, 207-212 is denied as moot. Plaintiff served untimely verified supplemental responses to Nos. 176, 186-198, 207-212 on May 13, 2020, before the hearing on the instant motion. (Decl. of Beck ¶12, Exh. 4.)

    VA is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide properly verified supplemental responses to Nos. 183-185, 201-205. (See C.C.P. §2030.250(a).) (See also Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”).) VA submitted evidence that on February 14, 2020, VA received Plaintiff’s unverified supplemental responses to certain special interrogatories and that VA’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the unverified status of the supplemental responses but had not received verifications as of the filing of the instant motion. (Decl. of Wang ¶¶7-8, Exhs. 4-5.) Plaintiff does not address the lack of verifications in his opposition. In reply, VA asserts that it has not yet received verifications for these supplemental responses. (Reply, pg. 3.)

    Based on the foregoing, VA’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory (Set Two) Nos. 176, 186-198, 207-212 is denied as moot. VA’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to the verifications for Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to Nos. 183-185, 201-205.

    Requests for Sanctions

    VA requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with its motions in the total amount of $14,400, reflecting 32 total hours at the rate of $450 per hour based on 13 hours (8 hours in preparing the Special Interrogatories (“SI”) motion and 5 hours anticipated to prepare the reply and appear at the hearing), plus 9 hours (6 hours preparing the Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) motion and 3 hours anticipated to prepare the reply and appear at the hearing), plus 10 hours (7 hours preparing the Compel Compliance Motion (“CC”) and 3 hours anticipated to prepare the reply and appear at the hearing) at the rate of $450 per hour. (SI-Decl. of Wang ¶9; RFP-Decl. of Wang ¶6; CC-Decl. of Wang ¶7.) The Court notes VA’s requests for monetary sanctions do not include filing fees.

    In light of the Court’s ruling granting VA’s motion to compel compliance with Requests for Production (Set Two) and granting VA’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set Two), VA is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff reflecting the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing these motions. In opposition, Plaintiff does not address VA’s requests for sanctions.

    The Court that VA’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with its motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories remains at issue notwithstanding the Court’s denial of the motion as moot given Plaintiff’s supplemental responses in advance of the hearing. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).) In opposition, Plaintiff does not address VA’s request for monetary sanctions, but argues that he could not provide complete responses to the subject interrogatories because he did not have the bank account documents in VA’s possession, and that only once VA made supplemental document production in March 2020 was Plaintiff able to provide supplemental responses. (Opposition, pgs. 6-9.) However, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit given that the special interrogatories seek Plaintiff’s bank account information into which he transferred a certain fund. (Reply, pgs. 2-3.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff did not demonstrate his failure to provide supplemental responses to the at-issue special interrogatories was substantially justified to bar sanctions. In addition, the Court notes the motion to compel further was granted as to the verifications for the February 14, 2020 supplemental production. As such, VA is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions.

    Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motions is $5,850, reflecting 13 hours incurred at $450 per hour (3 hours for drafting each of the motions, 1 hour for drafting each of the replies, and 1 hour for attending the hearing on the motions).

    Based on the foregoing, VA’s requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced total amount of $5,850.