Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV07695, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV07695 Hearing Date: April 19, 2024 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Westside Lighting, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, Set One;
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two
Form and Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff
Westside Lighting, Inc. moves to compel further responses by defendant Aaron
Green to form interrogatories Nos. 50.3-50.6 and special interrogatories Nos.
5-8, 17-19, 21, 23, 27, and 31. A party propounding interrogatories may move
to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n
exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or
“[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)
Green gave evasive or incomplete
responses to form interrogatories Nos. 50.3-50.6. No. 50.3 asks, “Was performance of any
agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, identify each agreement
excused and state why performance was excused.”
Green responded, “The fourth cause of action in the First Amended
Complaint alleges all the named defendants breached the Agreement of
Partnership. This request relates to the
Demanding Party’s allegations and not the Responding Party and therefore is not
applicable to.” The second amended
complaint alleges defendants breached a contract. This interrogatory asks Green if he contends
his performance was excused. The point
is to ask for information about the demanding party’s allegations. This response is evasive.
Nos. 50.4 to 50.6 ask if any
agreement alleged in the pleadings was terminated, is unenforceable, or is
ambiguous. Green responded that he “has
not had an opportunity to conduct discovery to determine” the answers and that
“[d]iscovery is still continuing.” Those
responses are evasive. The
interrogatories ask whether Green “is making a certain contention.” (CCP § 2030.010(b).) If he has not yet determined that an
agreement was terminated, unenforceable, or ambiguous, that means he is not
making those contentions. The proper answer
is “No.” That does not necessarily
foreclose Green from making those contentions later based on newly discovered
evidence.
Green gave a valid response to No.
21. It asks, “Please state which of the
jobs or matters as identified in the AGREEMENT were assigned to EOS
Organization, LLC.” Green responded, “None
of the projects that were awarded were assigned to EOS Organization, LLC. Rather, customers had the option to pay EOS
Organization, LLC or assign their right to receive rebate money to EOS Organization,
LLC. Discovery is still continuing to
determine the projects in which EOS Organization, LLC received money from the
customer or an outside entity.” Plaintiff’s
moving papers gloss over the first two sentences of the response and instead quote
the last sentence to argue Green “effectively fails to provide any response at
all.” (Separate Statement, p. 14.) The first sentence answers the question:
none. Whether that answer is true is a
matter of credibility, not compliance with the Civil Discovery Act. (See Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159
Cal.App.4th 316, 333 [“serving a willfully false answer to an interrogatory” is
“not specifically covered by the Civil Discovery Act”].)
Green gave evasive
or incomplete responses to special interrogatories Nos. 5-8, 17-19, 23, 27, and
31. For Nos. 5-8, Green objected that
the interrogatories erroneously referred to “Lux Technology Group, LLC” instead
of “Lux Technology Group, Inc.” After
meeting and conferring, the parties agreed Green would answer as to the proper
entity. (McGuiness Decl., Ex. 9.) Green did not supplement his responses. (Id., ¶ 24.) Green later attempted to make other
objections, which the court discusses below.
For Nos. 17, 18, 19, 23, Green
responded that answering would require making a compilation. “[T]he required specification of those
documents is inadequate.” (CCP §
2030.300(a)(2).) Under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.230, “This specification shall be in sufficient detail
to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the
responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the
propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these
documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” Green’s responses generically referred to
documents without specifying them or affording an opportunity to examine them.
Green made
meritless objections in response to No. 27.
It asks Green to identify “any bank or financial institution in which
YOU or DEFENDANTS hold a checking or saving account.” Green objected based on privacy. Any privacy objection fails because this
question does not constitute “a
threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).)
Green also objected
that the question is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. “Discovery may be
obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information,
tangible thing, or land or other property.”
(CCP § 2017.010.) One of the
primary claims in this action is that defendants kept money they got from other
sources and were supposed to pay to plaintiff.
Identifying defendants’ financial institutions is reasonably likely to
lead to admissible evidence on that subject.
Green gave an evasive response to No. 31, which asks, “For each person
or entity who owes money to the PARTNERSHIP, please state all amounts owed to
the PARTNERSHIP.” Green responded that he
“is in the process of finalizing the accounting that will identify (1) the expenses incurred for the projects awarded and (2) the income
received for the same projects in the form of rebates.” Rather than answering the question asked, he
stated he is working to identify information that is not quite what the
question asked. That response is
evasive.
Green also raised
various objections to several interrogatories for the first time in his meet
and confer correspondence. Green waived
those objections by failing to include them in his timely responses. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) The objections are also meritless. Any privacy objections are invalid because
the interrogatories do not constitute “a
threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams,
supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 552.) All disputed interrogatories are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Green’s objections to special
interrogatories Nos. 5-8, 17-19, 23, 27, and 31 are overruled.
Requests for Production, Set One
Plaintiff
Westside Lighting, Inc. moves to compel further responses by defendant Aaron
Green to requests for production, set one, Nos. 6, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30,
33, 34, 37-39, 41, 43 and 44. A requesting party may move to compel further
responses to requests for production if “[a] statement of compliance with the
demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is
without merit or too general.” (CCP §
2031.310(a).)
Green gave incomplete statements of
compliance in response to request Nos. 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 34, 41, and
43. A statement of compliance must state
that “all documents or things in the demanded category 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.”
(CCP § 2031.220.) A statement of
compliance must include that precise language because it states under oath not
only that the responding party will produce specified documents, but also that
the responding party is not withholding any responsive documents. Green responded that he “will produce
documents that are in the Responding Party's possession, custody or control
that are responsive to this request” or “will produce” some categories of
documents. These responses are
insufficient because they do not state Green will produce all documents
within the categories requested.
Any objections to
these requests were also “too general.”
(CCP § 2031.310(a)(3).) Except
for No. 41, rather than specifically objecting to each request, Green referred to
“the objections above” at the beginning of his response. Furthermore, he did not identify
any documents being withheld as required under Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.240(b)(1).
Green made
meritless objections to request Nos. 6, 37-39, 41, and 44. Each request is reasonably particularized
enough to permit a response. Green also objected
that the requests are irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Each
request is sufficiently tailored to the complaint’s substantive allegations or
to its alter ego allegations about the entity defendants. Green’s objections based on undue burden fail
because he did not present sufficient “ ‘evidence showing the quantum of work required.’
” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549.) Green’s objections
based on privacy fail for the same reasons discussed regarding the special
interrogatories. Assuming Green
established the three elements necessary for privacy objections, plaintiff’s
need for the information outweighs those privacy rights. (Id. at p. 552.) A stipulated protective order limiting
disclosure of the information would adequately protect any privacy rights.
Green’s objections
to requests for production, set one, Nos. 6, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 34, 37-39, 41, 43 and 44,
are overruled.
Format of Documents
Plaintiff also argues Green should be
required to produce documents such as spreadsheets in native format. “A party
demanding inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information
may specify the form or forms in which each type of electronically stored
information is to be produced.” (CCP §
2031.030(a)(2).) Plaintiff’s request for
production did not specify any form of electronically stored information. (McGuinness Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 4-5.) “If a demand for production does not
specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored
information, the responding party shall produce the information in the form or
forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably
usable.” (CCP § 2031.280(d)(1).) Producing the
documents in a single pdf file of over 1,100 pages is cumbersome but “reasonably
usable” enough to comply with this provision.
Requests for Production, Set Two
Plaintiff
Westside Lighting, Inc. moves to compel defendant Aaron Green to respond to
requests for production, set two. After
plaintiff filed this motion, Green served responses. (Green Decl., Ex. 1.) In these circumstances, the court may “treat
the motion as one” to compel further responses.
(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)
The
court finds good cause to compel Green to further respond to requests for
production, set two. A responding party
who does not serve timely responses waives any objection to the demands. (CCP § 2031.300(a).) Green’s responses do not explicitly object to
any of the requests, but in substance, they contain objections. Nearly all requests demand documents “from
2016 to the present.” Green responded
that he would produce documents “from June 1, 2019, to the present.” (Green Decl., Ex. 1.) In effect, that constitutes an objection and
refusal to produce documents from 2016 to June 2019. Green waived that objection. The responses also are incomplete statements
of compliance under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220. The responses state Green will produce some
documents instead of stating he will produce “all documents or things in the
demanded category that are in [his] possession, custody, or control … and to
which no objection is being made.” (Ibid.)
Sanctions
Plaintiff
moves for monetary sanctions in each motion.
“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes” any of these motions “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.” (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.300(c),
2031.310(h).)
Green’s
oppositions to the motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories
and requests for production, set two, were wholly unsuccessful. The other two oppositions were unsuccessful
with minimal exceptions. Defendant did
not act with substantial justification.
Sanctions are just under the circumstances.
The
court finds plaintiff did not reasonably incur all expenses claimed. The motion to compel further responses to
form interrogatories was simple and only reasonably required $1,250 in expenses. The motion on special interrogatories only
reasonably required $2,750 in expenses.
The motion on requests for production, set one, only reasonably required
$3,500 in expenses. The motion on
requests for production, set two, however, did reasonably require all $1,960
plaintiff claims.
Disposition
Plaintiff Westside Lighting, Inc.’s motion to
compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to
provide further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories –
general, Nos. 50.3 to 50.6, within 30 days.
Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to pay plaintiff $1,250 in
sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Westside Lighting, Inc.’s motion to
compel further responses to special interrogatories is denied as to No.
21 and granted as to Nos. 5-8, 17-19, 23, 27, and 31. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to
provide further verified responses without objections to special
interrogatories Nos. Nos. 5-8, 17-19, 23, 27, and 31 within 30 days. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to pay
plaintiff $2,750 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Westside Lighting, Inc.’s
motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, is denied
in part as to the format of the documents.
The motion is granted as to the responses to the requests. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to provide further verified
responses without objections to requests for production, set one, Nos. 6, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 34,
37-39, 41, 43 and 44, within 30 days. Defendant Aaron Green shall
produce all responsive documents concurrently with his verified written
responses. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to pay plaintiff $3,500 in
sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Westside
Lighting, Inc.’s motion to compel responses to requests for production, set two,
is granted. Defendant Aaron Green
is ordered to
provide further verified responses without objections to requests for
production, set two, Nos. 47-58, within 30 days. Defendant Aaron Green shall
produce all responsive documents concurrently with his verified written
responses. Defendant Aaron Green is ordered to pay plaintiff $1,960 in
sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff
Westside Lighting, Inc. moves to strike the answers of defendants Lux
Technology Group, Inc., Direct Green Solutions, LLC, and EOS Organization, LLC.
Plaintiff
moves to strike the three entities’ answers because they are not represented by
counsel. Entities must be represented by attorneys,
and courts may strike pleadings by unrepresented entities. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San
Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1149.)
Courts should “treat a corporation’s failure to be represented by an
attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the
sound discretion of the court. First and
foremost, this approach honors the cornerstone jurisprudential policies that,
in furtherance of justice, complaints are to be liberally construed [citation]
and disputes should be resolved on their merits” (Ibid.)
The court granted these defendants’
former counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel on January 8, 2024. The trial is set for March 2025. Defendant Aaron Green states he is working to
earn money to hire new counsel for himself and his co-defendants. (Green Decl., ¶¶ 2, 6.) Striking the entities’ answers now would be
premature. Denying this motion without
prejudice serves the policy of resolving disputes on their merits. The court may consider striking these
defendants’ answers if they remain unrepresented closer to trial. Moreover, even if their answers are not
stricken, they cannot defend themselves at trial without counsel.
Plaintiff Westside Lighting, Inc.’s
motion to strike the answers of defendants Lux Technology Group, Inc., Direct Green Solutions, LLC, and EOS
Organization, LLC, is denied without prejudice.