Reply To Defendant John Yoons Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Further Responses

Reply

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 26, 2017

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/15/2019 02:52 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Ramos,Deputy Clerk SS NO 0 N N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Karie J. Boyd, Esq./ State Bar No. 256840 Thomas D. Georgianna, Esq./ State Bar No. 242115 Jason R. Fisher, Esq./ State Bar No. 323288 BOYD LAW, APC 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3160 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Office: 310.777.0231; Fax: 310.694.0733 E-Mail: kb@boydlawapc.com E-Mail: tg@boydlawapc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, SPIKE’S INC., dba HOLLYWOOD BODY JEWELRY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SPIKES. INC. a California Corporation, d/b/a Case No.: BC648189 HOLLYWOOD BODY JEWELRY, co. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHN Plaintiff, YOON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR JOHN YOON, an individual; JK TRADING, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET INC., d/b/a CRAVE BODY JEWELRY, and TWO; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND DOES 1-25, inclusive, AUTHORITIES Defendants. RESERVATION LD. # 592643039200 DATE: March 6, 2019 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: 37 ACTION FILED: 01/26/2017 TRIAL DATE: 04/16/2019 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD: Defendant John Yoon’s (“Defendant”) opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is erroneous. Defendant rests its opposition on the baseless contention that it is excused from responding on the grounds that the requests contained in Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two are identical to those served in Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. This contention is patently false, and it 1 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL constitutes yet another instance of Defendant’s complete and utter failure to comply with any of its discovery obligations. This reply to Defendant’s opposition is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, all pleadings and papers on file, and arguments to be presented at the hearing on this matter. wm bs W N NO 0 a 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Date: February 14,2019 2 Respectfully Submitted: BOYD LAW, APC on GehN J. Boyd, Esq. Th as D. Georgianna, Esq. Jason R. Fisher, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, SPIKES, INC., d/b/a HOLLYWOOD BODY JEWELRY RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL O e Na 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES LL INTRODUCTION These motions are the continued result of Defendants’ abuse of the discovery process. According to Defendants, Plaintiff is not entitled to any discovery at all. Thus Defendants seek to back-door a discovery sanction against Plaintiff by their own refusal to comply with their obligation to respond to discovery requests in good faith. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded upon Defendant contained four requests, and Defendant provided no responses. The present Request for Production of Documents, Set Two contains only three requests, yet Defendant has still provided no responses. To date, Defendant has not provided substantive responses to any of the discovery propounded by Plaintiff in this action. Clearly this flagrant abuse of the discovery process constitutes a significant problem, as it deprives the Plaintiffs of their right to fair and just adjudication of the issues submitted. Defendant’s outright refusal to provide any responses at all to any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests does not speak highly of its character. Defendant has continued this bad faith course of action by refusing to provide any substantive responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, alleging that the requests contained in this discovery instrument are identical to those contained in Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Through these illogical accusations, Defendant is trying to confuse the Court into validating Defendant’s flat out refusal to comply with its discovery obligations. IL. ARGUMENTS A. The Requests Are Not Identical Defendant contends that Plaintiff essentially re-propounded the same requests contained in its Request for Production of Documents, Set One in an effort to “reset the clock through the stratagem of asking the same question again.” This contention is absurd and undoubtedly false. A side-by-side comparison of requests from Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two reveals important and substantial differences. These critical differences defeat any contentions of prohibited duplicate discovery. First, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 5 is identical to Request 3 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL wm Be WwW ND O e NN 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for Production No. 1. However, a comparison of the two reveals crucial differences: Request No. 1: “ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing the date on which “Munkyung Han” with email address, ‘lhanmk@gmail.com’ was added to YOUR client list. Request No. 5: “ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing the addition of “Munkyung Han” with email address, ‘lhanmk@gmail.com’ to your client list. The new request is as different from the old request as can be. The requests seek entirely different information. The first request asks only for documents evidencing the dare on which Munkyung Han was added to Defendant’s client list. The second request seeks evidence of adding Munkyung Han to the customer list. That is a completely different request. Thus, Request No. 5 does not request the same documents that are requested in Request No. 1. Therefore, it is impossible to argue that the requests are identical, Defendants’ ridiculous efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 6 is identical to Request for Production No. 2. However, once again, a comparison of the two reveals crucial differences: Request No. 2: “ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing emails between CRAVE BODY JEWELRY and email address, ‘lhanmk@gmail.com’ in their native electronic format. Request No. 6: “ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing communications between CRAVE BODY JEWELRY and ‘Munkyung Han’, including but not limited to, emails with email address, ‘lhanmk@gmail.com’ in their native electronic format. Again, the request made is not “identical” to the request that was made in the previously propounded discovery to Defendants. Defendants were requested to produce in Request No. 2, all documents evidencing emails between CRAVE BODY JEWELRY and email address “lhanmk@gmail.com”. On the other hand, Request No. 6 is different in that it requests Defendants to produce all documents evidencing communications. Communications can constitute much more than emails, including telephone logs, hand written letters, notes, instant messages, comments on social media, etc. As in the above comparison of Requests No. | and 5, here the documents to be produced in response to each request substantially differ. Additionally, Request No. 6 asks for communications with “Munkyung Han” and not merely the email address “lhanmk@gmail.com.” Here too, responsive documents have the potential to greatly differ. Thus, because these two requests ask for significantly different categories 4 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL O e 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of documents, they cannot be said to be identical. Furthermore, Defendant’s reliance on Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, is misplaced. The court in Career Colleges held that a student who failed to meet time limits for moving to compel answers to interrogatories could not avoid consequences of delay by propounding the same question again. (I1d., 494) (emphasis added). However, the present circumstances differ from those in Career Colleges because the requests for production that Defendant complains of are not the same question. As explained above, the difference between Request 1 (old) and Request 5 (new) is that Request 1 sought evidence on a particular date, while Request 5 seeks evidence of the actual adding of an email address to the customer list. The subject matter of the requests is entirely different. Accordingly, Career Colleges does not apply. As explained above, the difference between Request 2 (old) and Request 6 (new) is that Request 2 seeks emails from a particular address while Request 6 requests communications with an individual. The subject matter of the requests is entirely different. Accordingly, Career Colleges does not apply. B. Plaintiff's Request No. 7 Constitutes Authorized Contention Discovery Defendant improperly characterizes Request No. 7 in Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Two as vague and ambiguous, burdensome, and oppressive, claiming that it is too broad. However, Request No. 7 constitutes simple contention discovery, permitted by California’s Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010). In fact, courts have held that one of the main purposes of civil discovery is to “ascertain the contentions of the adverse party.” (Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318). Therefore, this type of discovery is absolutely authorized and cannot be criticized as overly broad. Not only is Request No. 7 an authorized form of discovery, it is one of the most basic forms of discovery authorized by law. It merely requests that Defendant provide documentary evidence to support the affirmative defenses contained in its Answer. Despite a responding party’s objection that a request is ambiguous, confusing, or overbroad, the responding party nonetheless owes a duty to respond in good faith as best it can. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783). Defendant’s outright refusal to even attempt compliance with this valid request demonstrates its inability to find any 5 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL O 0 0 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 evidence to support its defenses and violates its duty to at least make an attempt at providing responses. Defendant would have this Court believe that Defendant is unable to understand what its own affirmative defenses are. Defendant would have this Court rule that Plaintiff may be subjected to “trial by ambush” because Defendant cannot be bothered to produce evidence to support its own affirmative defenses. Such efforts to “cheat” discovery are supposed to be dealt with quite harshly under the law on the books. Without it, there cannot be even a semblance of justice. C. Defendant Is Attempting to Circumvent Plaintiff’s Right to Discovery As noted above, Defendant’s baseless contentions of duplicate discovery constitute an attempt to confuse the Court into validating Defendant’s refusal to comply with its discovery obligations under California’s Code of Civil Procedure. To date, Defendant has provided zero substantive responses to any of the discovery propounded by Plaintiff; Defendant’s responses have consisted of either improper blanket objections or have been entirely absent. Under California law, a party is entitled to disclosure in discovery “as a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations prohibit it.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355). Therefore, because Defendant’s continued refusal to provide any substantive discovery responses is not based on any valid statutory or public policy considerations, Defendant’s bad faith refusal to participate in discovery deprives Plaintiff of its right to discovery. Courts have construed the California’s discovery statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. (Id, 377-78). Courts have consistently affirmed that California’s discovery statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. (Flagship Theaters of Palm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383). Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter is either itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010). In light of the above, Defendant’s improper blanket objections and failure to respond demonstrates a clear misuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010). Defendant’s actions evidence an intent to obstruct any meaningful discovery between the parties all the way up until the time of trial. Such actions have completely obstructed any possibility of settlement or an otherwise 6 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DO 0 NN 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amicable resolution to the present dispute. Defendant’s consistent efforts to hide the ball constitutes flagrant abuse of the discovery process and attempts to make a mockery of the law. Throughout these proceedings, at every turn, Defendant has worked to deprive Plaintiff of its right to fair judicial proceedings. This is not the practice of law, and it should not be allowed to continue. III. CONCLUSION Here, Defendant is seeking the equivalent of a discovery sanction. Defendant is asking this Court to bar Plaintiff from any discovery whatsoever. What is the basis for the request of such a drastic discovery sanction? Nothing other than to conceal Defendant’s liability. This is utterly deplorable and reflects badly on the practice of law and the most basic notions of fairness and justice. This conduct must be penalized. Plaintiff again respectfully requests that this Court order Defendant to provide further responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Further, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,625.00 for Defendant’s preposterous bad faith efforts and abuse of the discovery process. DATE: February 14, 2019 BOYD LAW, APC DS Karje J. { Esq. Thgmas DX eorgianna, Esq. Jason R. Fisher, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, SPIKES, INC., d/b/a HOLLYWOOD BODY JEWELRY 7 RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL © 0 3 AN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Angie Martinez, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the following is true and correct: I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within entitled action. I am an employee of Boyd Law, and my business address is 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1760, San Diego, CA 92101 On February 15, 2019 I served the attached RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JOHN YOON'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested parties in this action [X] by placing the original and/or a true copy thereof enclosed in (a) sealed envelope(s), addressed as follows: [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED BY THE ACT OF FILING OR SERVICE THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED ON PAPER PURCHASED AS RECYCLED. [X] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with this office’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California, in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancelation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ 1] (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be personally delivered to the offices of the addressee on. [ 1] (BY FACSIMILE) On February 15, 2019, I caused all of the pages of the above-entitled document to be sent to the recipient(s) noted above via facsimile, to the respective facsimile numbers indicated above, pursuant to California Rule of Court 2009. The facsimile machine I used complied with rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to rule 2005(i), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission. [ 1] (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER-OVERNITE EXPRESS) I caused the above-described document to be served on by overnight courier: . [X] (BY EMAIL) I caused such documents to be emailed to the offices with the following email addresses. John Oh - john johnohlaw.com Executed on February 15,2019 at San Diego, California. ANQIEMARTINEZ, Doflarane PROOF OF SERVICE wv Ae W N SS NO NN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST John H. Oh, Esq. Law Offices of John H. Oh & Associates, P.C. 4221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 333 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Counsel for Defendants, JOHN YOON and JK TRADING INC., d/b/a CRAVE BODY JEWLERY