Joo v. Lee, et al.

Whitestone claims it cannot provide a breakdown because its independent bookkeeper, Minji Pack, took the desktop QuickBooks file out of the country in April 2026.

Whitestone's defense fails for several reasons. Interrogatory No. 13 was served in December 2025--months before Ms. Pack allegedly became unresponsive or left the country in April 2026. Whitestone offers no adequate justification for failing to obtain a creditor-by-creditor breakdown while the bookkeeper was actively generating financial reports for Whitestone in January 2026. Whitestone admits in its Fourth Supplemental Response that it has begun independently assembling its accounting records from source documents.

A corporate debtor cannot refuse to disclose known or ascertainable debt obligations to individual creditors--including corporate officers, affiliated entities, and retained legal counsel--simply because its primary QuickBooks file is unavailable. Whitestone must provide a full, itemized further response based on all information and records currently in its possession, custody, or control.

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein. Further responses are to be provided within 20 days. Whitestone is sanctioned $1,000, which is to be paid within 30 days. The objections are overruled. Moving party to give notice.

Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 310 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Case Name: Joo v. Lee, et al. Case No.: 25STCV17549 Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses Moving Party: Defendant Seung Kyung Park Responding Party: Plaintiff Min Woo Joo Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion is granted. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is an action arising from an unpaid loan. Plaintiff alleges, "On or about April 3, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendant Lee entered into a written 'Secured Promissory Note,' pursuant to which Plaintiff loaned Lee $5,000 plus 50% of all operational expenses paid by Plaintiff for Refined Current, LLC during 2025. The note required repayment upon the earlier of December 31, 2025 or the occurrence of a first sales transaction and distribution to Lee. . . . To date, despite repeated demands Lee has refused and failed to repay the amounts due under the Note."

Defendant Seung Kyung Park now seeks to compel further responses to her requests for production, set two, nos. 3-6 from Plaintiff Min Woo Joo. A response to a demand for production must contain a statement of compliance (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.220), a representation of inability to comply (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.230), or a specific objection (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.240).

Plaintiff's responses to RFP Nos. 3-6 state that "responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, will be produced to the extent such documents exist and are within Responding Party's possession, custody, or control." This conditional, hybrid language fails to comply with the Discovery Act. The phrase "if any... to the extent such documents exist" is evasive. The Code requires an unequivocal statement of whether the responding party will comply (in whole or in part) or lacks the ability to comply following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

Plaintiff's boilerplate overbreadth and relevance objections are unavailing. In a suit alleging breach of a promissory note triggered by sales distributions and seeking a constructive trust over business operations, corporate sales contracts, revenues, and receipts of Refined Current, LLC (RFP Nos. 3-5) and proof of special damages (RFP No. 6) are directly relevant to the subject matter and discoverable under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2017.010.

In sum, the Motion is granted. Further responses/production are to be provided within 20 days. No sanctions. Moving party to give notice.