LEE GORDON BLUCKER ET AL VS. MIRABELLE HWANG ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Line 14. PLAINTIFFS LEE BLUCKER, AND KATHRYN LENHART's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs' Request For Production Of Documents, Set One To Defendant Mirabelle Hwang; Request For Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiffs Lee Blucker and Kathryn Lenhart's motion to compel further responses to their request for production of documents, set one, no. 2 is GRANTED.

Preliminarily, defendant Mirabelle Hwang seeks relief from her waiver of objections to Plaintiffs' demand under CCP 2031.300(a). That section provides: "The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver...." (emphasis added.) It does not allow the court to provide this relief sua sponte in response to Ms. Hwang's opposition. Ms. Hwang's objections are waived for failure to serve a timely response.

Turning to the merits, request no. 2 is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP 2017.010.) Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of setting forth specific facts showing good cause for production. (CCP 2031.310(b)(1).) In this request, Plaintiffs seek "[a]ll written or recorded statements of any witness to the SUBJECT INCIDENT." (Nazarian decl. Ex. C, Plaintiffs' request for production, set one, no. 2.)

Ms. Hwang admits she has a recorded statement in her possession. She explains in opposition and in her Form Interrogatory responses that she was interviewed and recorded on December 7, 2023, by a representative from her insurance carrier, GEICO. (Nazarian decl. Ex. F, Response to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 12.2, 12.3.) Yet in response to request no. 2, Ms. Hwang merely claims "this request doesn't specify between witnesses and parties." (Nazarian decl. Ex. G, Response to request for production, set one, no. 2.) This response is evasive. Ms. Hwang is both a party to the case and a witness to the car accident. Any recorded statement that Ms. Hwang made about the accident would be responsive to this request.

Ms. Hwang is ordered to produce responsive documents no later than July 18, 2025. The court finds that Ms. Hwang did not act with substantial justification in providing this deficient response. Ms. Hwang and counsel shall, jointly and severally, pay $900 to Plaintiffs in sanctions, payment no later than July 7, 2025.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. =(301/JMT) | |