Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2021-01218697, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling
1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
3. Motion to Compel Production
4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions filed by Mall at
White Oaks, LLC, Orange City Mills Limited Partnership, Del Amo Fashion
Center Operating Company, LLC on 4/21/23
Plaintiff Simon Property Group, L.P. and Cross-Defendants Del Amo Fashion Center Operating Company, L.L.C., Orange City Mills Limited Partnership, and Mall at White Oaks, LLC’s (“Landlords”) Motions to Compel are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Landlords seek an order compelling Fitness International, LLC “(LA Fitness”) to produce documents and provide further responses to RFAs 5-6, Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1, Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 6 and 18 and RFP Nos. 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15. The unresolved discovery disputes fall within three categories: (i) financial discovery; (ii) the identity of individuals with knowledge of relevant facts; and (iii) completeness of document production.
Financial Information (RFAs 5-6, Form Rog 17.1, Special Rog 18, RFP 15)
By way of RFAs 5-6, Special Interrogatory No. 18, Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (regarding RFAs Nos. 5 and 6) and RFP No. 15, Landlords seek information related to LA Fitness’s finances and financial ability to pay rent. Landlords argue that LA Fitness’s financial information is relevant because of LA Fitness’s decision to make its financial condition central to this case by asserting impossibility and impracticability arguments.
As Landlords point out, in response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, which requests information regarding LA Fitness’s denials of each material allegation and regarding its affirmative defenses—i.e., it sets forth LA Fitness’s defense theory—LA Fitness states “Tenant’s performance was rendered impossible and impracticable because Tenant was prohibited from using the premises and Tenant did not generate any revenue from the premises, as membership dues/fees/monetary payments were frozen.”
Based on this statement in LA Fitness’s verified discovery response, LA Fitness did put its financial condition at issue. The Court notes that, while at first blush RFP No. 15 appears extremely broad, the “Definitions and Instructions” section indicates that the relevant time period is limited to 1/1/20 through the present. This appears to be a reasonable time period for the requested financial information.
The motion is GRANTED as to RFAs 5-6, Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, Special Interrogatory No. 18 and RFP No. 15.
Identification of Individuals
Landlord contends that LA Fitness’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6 and Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 15.1 are incomplete.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6, ask LA Fitness to identify the individuals who decided to close the fitness centers (No. 3) and the individuals who decided to withhold Rent or claim overpayment of Rent. LA Fitness did not identify any individuals in response to either of those interrogatories. LA Fitness instead explained that there were no individuals to identify because LA Fitness did not make the decision to close the facilities but was instead required by law to do so. It did not identify any individuals in response to No. 6 because it claims it did not withhold rent because its obligation to pay rent under the Lease was excused and/or abated.
LA Fitness’s reason for not identifying any individuals in response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 6 are not well taken. The responses were evasive. Even assuming the truth of LA Fitness’s responses, there must have been one or more individuals who decided to close the facilities and to not send rent payments.
Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 15.1 ask for information about the incident and for information about LA Fitness’s denials of allegations and affirmative defenses. Landlords complain that LA Fitness only identified one individual in response to both interrogatories. Landlord contends that, based on documents produced by LA Fitness in discovery, there are more individuals who should be identified in response to those interrogatories. See Waddell Decl. ¶14. LA Fitness has not given a persuasive explanation as to why these other individuals were not listed.
The motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 15.1 and Special Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6.
Requests for Production
Landlords contend that LA Fitness’s responses to RFP Nos. 1-5, 8, 9, 12 and 13 are not code compliant because LA Fitness only agreed to produce documents “in its possession,” even though the code requires that it produce documents “in its possession, custody or control.”
LA Fitness responds that the responses are proper because Landlords specially defined “possession, custody or control” so that its meaning reaches beyond the scope of the statute. LA Fitness also contends that the remaining information at issue has no relevancy to the action and would require the time-consuming compilation of records from multiple locations at great expense to LA Fitness.
The “Definitions and Instructions” section of the Requests states that “[a] document is within your possession, custody or control if you have the right or ability to secure the document or a copy thereof from any other person having physical possession thereof.” LA Fitness takes issue with this definition because “you” and “your” is not just limited to LA Fitness, but also includes “its current or former parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, divisions, departments, or operating units and includes without limitations, its current or former officers, directors, shareholders, members, employees, principals, agents, managers, advisors, and all persons or entities acting or purporting to act on their behalf, or any other related entities.”
The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1). “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” Kirkland v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (2002).
Here, Landlords have not met their moving burden. No facts have been articulated demonstrating the relevance of the requests, particularly in light of the broad scope created by the “Definitions and Instructions” section of the requests.
The motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 1-5, 8, 9, 12 and 13.
LA Fitness’s objections to the Waddell declaration are OVERRULED.
Landlords’ request for judicial notice is DENIED as irrelevant.
Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.
LA Fitness shall produce further documents and serve further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1 and 15.1, Special Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6, and Request for Production No. 15 not inconsistent with the aforementioned ruling within 21 calendar days of notice of this ruling.
Landlords to give notice.