Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV03339, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03339    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff NKSFB, LLC

OPPOSITION:                      Defendant Wayne Kamemoto.

REPLY:                                 Plaintiff NKSFB, LLC.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant NKSFB and its principals are engaged in the business of providing family office, business management, consulting, tax, and similar services to their clients. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant KSFB and its members are service providers to NKSFB. Pursuant to a management agreement entered into as of April 1, 2018, NKSFB engaged KSFB to provide day-to-day management oversight and operation of NKSFB’s business (the “KSFB Parties”).

The KSFB Parties bring this action against Defendant Wayne Kamemoto (“Kamemoto”) and Defendant Thomas St. John Inc. on the grounds that Defendants used confidential information belonging to the KSFB Parties to poach clients and staff away from the KSFB Parties.

NKSFB now brings the instant motion requesting the following: (1) an order compelling Kamemoto to provide further interrogatory response to Special Interrogatory No. 7; (2) an order compelling Kamemoto to produce responsive documents as to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) No. 56; and (3) an order compelling Kamemoto to comply with NKSFB’s demand for inspection of Kamemoto’s cellphone and associated user accounts used by Kamemoto since November 8, 2021. (Notice of Motion at pg. 2.)[1]  

By notice filed February 13, 2023, Plaintiff informed the Court that the parties have resolved their dispute with regard to Special Interrogatory No. 7 and the inspection of the cell phone, and that they only need resolution by the Court of the dispute regarding RPD No. 56.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part the instant Motion ordering production of documents responsive to RPD No. 56.

Facts: Prior to the commencement of this action, NKSFB and Kamemoto entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement. (Cofer Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 15.) By March 25, 2022, NKSFB propounded on Kamemoto the following discovery requests: (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) RPD, Set One. (Cofer Decl. ¶ 3; Exhs. 1-2.) Kamemoto provided his initial responses to these discovery requests on April 26, 2022, objecting to these interrogatories and requests on the grounds of relevancy and privacy. (Cofer Decl. ¶ 4; Exhs. 3-4.) Additionally, Kamemoto indicated in his response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.6 that he is employed by Defendant Thomas St. John Inc. since January 2021 and holds the title of director. (Cofer Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. 17.)

Subsequently, on April 27, 2022, NKSFB propounded on Kamemoto an inspection demand to which Kamemoto served his objections on June 1, 2022. (Cofer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Exhs. 5-6.) On May 29, 2022, NKSFB initiated a meet and confer regarding deficiencies to various responses, including Special Interrogatory No. 7 and Requests for Production No. 56. (Cofer Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 8.) This meet and confer process continued through July 12, 2022, and Kamemoto agreed to participate in an informal discovery conference. (Cofer Decl. ¶¶ 9-14, Exhs. 9-14.) Ultimately, the scheduled informal discovery conference initially scheduled for September 2, 2022 and later continued to January 27, 2023 was vacated on November 9, 2022. (See November 9, 2022 Minute Order.)

Between May 18, 2022 and August 18, 2022, NKSFB and Kamemoto reached an agreement for a stipulated protective order regarding confidential information. (Cofer Decl. ¶¶ 18-19; Exhs. 19-20.) On December 19, 2022, the Court granted the proposed stipulation. On August 25, 2022, Kamemoto produced his first set of production of documents that were responsive to NKSFB’s RPD. (Cofer Decl. ¶¶ 20-21.) Because of the claimed deficiencies in the response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, the failure to produce documents responsive to RPD No. 56, and the refusal to submit to a forensic inspection of Kamemoto’s cellphone and associated user accounts, NKSFB filed the instant motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses and Compliance with Request for Production of Documents, Set One: GRANTED

Legal Standard: In responding to a demand for production of documents, a party must provide one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a); § 2031.220 [requirements for partial compliance with production demand]; § 2031.230 [statement of inability to comply must include reason why].) If any objections are made, they must: (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document … falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.”  (Id., § 2031.240(b).) 

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to a document production demand must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.”  (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)  If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320(a) provides as follows: “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection . . . in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”  

Analysis: NKSFB requests an Order compelling Kamemoto to provide further responses to RPD No. 56 and to produce responsive documents.  Kamemoto objected to the request. (See NKSFB’s Separate Statement at pg. 4.)

Here, RPD No. 56 seeks the production of: “All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATED TO any agreement, whether written or unwritten, and including all amendments thereto, between YOU and TSJI.” (NKSFB’s Separate Statement at pg. 4.) Based on Kamemoto’s response, he objects based on relevancy and privacy grounds. (Ibid.)

In its moving papers, NKSFB contends that these agreements are relevant to its allegations because it would determine whether the Defendants acted in concert to harm NKSFB. (Motion at pp. 10-11.) It further reasons that these agreements would help determine whether Thomas St. John Inc. is vicariously liable for Kamemoto’s conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior. (Id. at pg. 11.) Also, NKSFB asserts that any privacy issues have been mitigated based on the protective order that is in place. (Motion at pp. 12-13; NKSFB Separate Statement at pp. 4-7.)

In opposition, Kamemoto argues that RPD No. 56 is overbroad because it seeks documents “related to” his employment and it is not narrowly tailored. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) He further asserts that it lacks relevancy on the basis that NKSFB refuses to produce comparable documents. (Opposition at pg. 3.)

Kamemoto has abandoned his privacy objection by failing to provide any justification for it.  (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [determining that it is objector’s burden to provide justification for his objections].) Nevertheless, the protective order would diminish his privacy concerns.  Furthermore, his overbreadth objection has been waived because it is untimely raised. (See Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1141.) It is noted that Kamemoto has not sought to be relieved of this waiver.

Regardless, the terms “any” and “all documents” or “related to” does not cause a discovery request to be overbroad. (First Amend. Coal. v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 159, 166; Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pg. 98.) Moreover, there is good cause in requiring further responses because the agreements sought are relevant to determine the extent of Thomas St. John Inc.’s liability.

Accordingly, with respect to RPD No. 56, the Court GRANTS the instant Motion.

Conclusion

Plaintiff NKSFB LLC’s Motion is Granted as to RPD No. 56.

Defendant Wayne Kamemoto is instructed to provide further verified responses and documents responsive to RPD No. 56 within thirty (30) days of this Order.