Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV18886, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18886 Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Dept: 52
Defendant/cross-complainant
Deanna J. Wiebe moves to compel plaintiff/cross-defendant Wiliams & Ribb
LLP (W&R) to provide further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 20-53. 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).)
Wiebe
also moves to compel W&R to provide further responses to requests for
production Nos. 6-14. 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).)
Wiebe’s Alleged Status as
Partner
W&R contends the
requests are irrelevant or overbroad because Wiebe was never a partner of
W&R. Wiebe’s cross-complaint arises
largely from her allegation that she was a partner. She is not required to prove that assertion
before obtaining discovery. “California
law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims
or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses
is to place the cart before the horse.”
(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551 (Williams).) Wiebe alleges sufficient facts (and, in this
motion, presents some supporting evidence) to establish the prima facie
elements of her claim that she was a partner.
Privacy Rights
W&R
argues Wiebe’s discovery requests infringe on W&R’s former partners’
privacy interests. “The party asserting a privacy right must
establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion
that is serious.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If the objecting party shows all three
elements, then the court must balance the need for disclosure against the right
to privacy. (Ibid.) The court must also consider “the availability of alternatives and
protective measures.” (Id. at p. 556.)
W&R does not meet its burden of
showing the second element as to all these requests. Partners have the right to inspect a partnership’s
books and records. (Corp. Code, § 16403.) The former partners do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy from another partner.
As discussed above, Wiebe makes a sufficient showing she was a partner. W&R also contends these discovery
requests are overly broad because they include periods when Wiebe does not even
allege she was a partner. As to information
from before she allegedly became a partner, that information would have
remained part of the partnership’s books and records when she became a partner. Wiebe therefore would have been entitled to
access the information. But she would
not be entitled to information post-dating her alleged partnership interest. The partners have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in that information.
Assuming W&R established all
three elements of its privacy objections to the entirety of the disputed
interrogatories and requests for production, Wiebe’s need for disclosure
outweighs the privacy rights involved.
This discovery could reveal information essential to prove Wiebe’s
claims and the amount of any damages.
The information, though subject to a legally protected privacy interest,
is not so sensitive that it warrants denying this discovery. The protective order entered on September 5,
2024, adequately mitigates the intrusion.
Discussion
Wiebe’s special interrogatories and
requests for production are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. She shows good
cause for production of the requested documents. Each interrogatory and request for production
is sufficiently tailored to the issues in the case. W&R’s objections to special
interrogatories Nos. 20-53 and requests for production Nos. 6-14 are overruled.
Disposition
Defendant/cross-complainant
Deanna J. Wiebe’s motion to compel
further responses to special interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff/cross-defendant Wiliams
& Ribb LLP is ordered to provide further verified responses without objections to special
interrogatories Nos. 20-53 within 30 days.
Defendant/cross-complainant
Deanna J. Wiebe’s motion to compel
further responses to requests for production is granted. Plaintiff/cross-defendant Wiliams
& Ribb LLP is ordered to provide further verified responses without objections to requests for
production Nos. 6-14 within 30 days.
Williams & Ribb LLP shall produce all responsive documents
concurrently with its written responses.