Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 19STCV03095, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 19STCV03095, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV03095 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Chen, et. al. vs. Li, et. al., Case No. 19STCV03095

Tentative Ruling re: Cross-complainant’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

Cross-Complainant Gerardo Lopez (Lopez) moves for an order compelling Cross-Defendant Mosaic Solar Loan Trust 2018-1 (MSLT) to produce further responses to Request Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the Requests for Production (Set One). The motion is granted. MSLT is ordered to serve further responses and documents within ten (10) days of today’s date. The Court orders monetary sanctions against MSLT in the amount of $3,198. MSLT is ordered to pay Cross-complainant’s counsel $3,198 within thirty (30) days of today’s date.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contains objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Lopez served the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on MSLT on August 23, 2022. (Valdez Jr. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The Requests at issue read as follows:

Request No. 2: “All agreements for transfer of the FINANCING CONTRACT [i.e., the contract financing the sale and installation of the solar panels at Lopez’s residence] to or from YOU or any other entity.”

Request No. 3: “All written communications discussing transfer of the FINANCING CONTRACT to YOU or any other entity.”

Request No. 4: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing transfer of the FINANCING CONTRACT to or from YOU or any other entity.”

MSLT served initial responses on September 26, 2022. (Valdez Jr. Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) MSLT objected to Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, seeking confidential information, and seeking information protected by privilege or work-product doctrine.

In Opposition, MSLT argues that the Requests are irrelevant because MSLT has, in other discovery responses, confirmed its status as a current or former holder of the financing contract. As MSLT acknowledges, its alleged liability is premised on it being a current or former holder of the contract.

Lopez disputes that MSLT has conceded its status as a current or former holder in discovery, and the Court agrees that MSLT’s responses on this issue appear equivocal. (Friedland Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2 [“Responding Party is a beneficiary of the Financing Contract but not a holder”] [15].) Furthermore, MSLT’s purported concession would not necessarily preclude discovery of the documents; “[e]ven if, by concession in a pleading a party removes, perhaps temporarily, a given issue from the case, the scope of discoverable information will not necessarily be narrowed.” (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 174–75.) MSLT has also failed to explain how documents related to the transfer of the financing contract constitute “confidential business documents” protected from discovery. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is granted.

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted based on MSLT’s unsuccessful opposition. Lopez requests sanctions in the amount of $3,198, based on 4.4 hours billed by counsel and 3.6 hours of paralegal time, plus a filing fee of $60. (Valdez Jr. Decl. ¶ 10.) The requested sanctions are granted.