Judge Anthony J. Ferrentino, Case 22D000898 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Anthony J. Ferrentino, Case: 22D000898, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter is admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (C.C.P. § 2017.010.) A motion to compel further response may be made when the responses provided are incomplete, evasive, or where objections are meritless/too broad. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.300, 2031.010(a), 2031.010(b), 2033.290.)     

The court’s ruling on a motion to compel further responses usually is based on consideration of the following factors: The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial at ¶ 8:1136 (The Rutter Group 2022).)      

A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) Control includes possession a legal right to obtain documents requested upon demand. (Negro v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4^th 879, 901.)     

Although relevance is typically construed liberally (See Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy. When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Id.) The court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Id.) The party asserting a privacy right must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and (3) a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370-71.) The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)     

The responding party shall respond separately to each demanded item with any of the following: a statement that the party will comply ((a)(1)), a representation that the party lacks ability to comply ((a)(2)), or an objection ((a)(3)). (C.C.P. § 2031.210(a)(1)-(3).) A statement that the party will comply pursuant to (a)(1) shall also state whether the production shall be in whole or in part; and shall state that all documents demanded that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (C.C.P. § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply pursuant to (a)(2) shall affirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply; shall specify whether the inability to comply is because the item never existed, was destroyed, lost, misplaced, stolen, has never been, or is no longer in the possession, custody or control of the responding party; and shall set forth the name and address of any person or organization known or believed to have possession, custody or control of that item. (C.C.P. § 2031.230.) If only part of the item is objectionable pursuant to (a)(3), the response shall contain a statement of compliance pursuant to (a)(1) or a representation of inability to comply with the remainder of the item pursuant to (a)(2). (C.C.P. § 2031.240(a).) If the entire item is objected to pursuant to (a)(3), the response shall identify with particularity any document falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made; set forth clearly the extent and ground for the objection and any privilege shall be expressly asserted; if an objection is based on a claim of privilege or attorney-work product doctrine, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (C.C.P. § 2031.240(b)(1)-(2), (c)(1)-(2).)    

Analysis of RPD No. 25

This RPD seeks docs related to any and all business interests, partnerships, joint ventures, etc. RP's response doesn’t specify whether production will be in whole or in part, as is required. RP also states that some responsive documents aren’t in his possession, and refers MP to a VP of Finance—this person is likely under RP's authority and therefore under his control for discovery purposes. Furthermore, there are documents missing for Vestar entities. This response is not code- compliant and insufficient, and therefore the motion may granted as to this RPD.

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. (C.C.P. § 1048(b).)

“Where a trial is bifurcated, the trial court may issue an order limiting discovery to the first of the bifurcated issues to be tried. An order limiting the scope of examination to preclude inquiry into the subject of damages is appropriate where the issues of liability and damages are to be tried separately. A protective order may also be issued barring discovery of matters related to affirmative defenses which are not cognizable in the proceeding because discovery relating to such defenses would be irrelevant and immaterial.” (§ 26:329. Order limiting scope of discovery in connection with bifurcated trial, 10A Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 26:329)

Courts have fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as the inherent power to control the litigation before them. (Cottle v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377.) Thus, courts have inherent power to adopt any suitable method of practice, both in ordinary actions and special proceedings, if the procedure is not otherwise specified by statute or by rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (Citizens Utilities Co. of Cal. v. Sup. Ct. of Santa Cruz County (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 805, 812–813.) That inherent power entitles courts to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation to insure the orderly administration of justice. The Legislature has also recognized the authority of courts to manage their proceedings and to adopt suitable methods of practice. (See C.C.P. §§ 128, 127; § 1:9. Inherent powers, Cal. Civ. Ctrm. Hbook. & Desktop Ref. § 1:9 (2022 ed.).)

In this case, there is currently a pending trial on the bifurcated issue of the validity of the prenuptial agreement. While it may be sensible to determine that threshold issue before ruling on specific discovery motions. In this Court’s opinion, if the prenuptial agreement is determined to be invalid, it might necessarily affect the discovery needs in this case. Nevertheless, if the prenuptial agreement is determined to be valid, the discovery sought in this motion would be still be relevant to the remaining issues in this case. The Court declines to continue this motion and staying discovery pending determination of the validity of the prenuptial agreement, as this Court believes that the discovery sought by MP in this case will be relevant irrespective of the outcome of the trial on the validity of the prenuptial agreement.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with C.C.P. § 2023.010) on the party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to discovery. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.310(h), 2030.290(c).) If a monetary sanction is authorized, the court must impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. § 2031.310(h).)    

RP has not provided substantial justification which makes the imposition of sanctions unjust.

MP’s motion to compel further responses and compliance with production to Petitioner’s demand for production of documents is GRANTED.

RP is ordered to provide code complaint responses and to produce the requested documents within 30 days.

RP is ordered to pay MP sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00, payable in full within 30 days.

The Court reserves the right to limit further discovery in this case in light of the bifurcated trial on the validity of the prenuptial agreement that is currently scheduled.