Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19GDCV01347, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19GDCV01347 Hearing Date: August 8, 2022 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 3
GOLDEN J GROUP, INC. vs. JIANHUA LI | Case No.: | 19GDCV01347 |
Hearing Date: | August 8, 2022 | |
Time: | ||
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF GOLDEN J GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT EMC TRANSPORTATION, INC.
| ||
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION |
| |
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Golden J Group Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant EMC Transportation Inc.
Plaintiff Golden J Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Production of Documents from Defendant EMC Transportation, Inc.
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Golden J Group, Inc. (“Golden J”) and J&J Freight Solutions, LLC filed this action on October 22, 2019 against Defendants Jianhua Li (“Li”), Nenyin Tan (“Tan”), and CTU Connection (“CTU”). Plaintiffs are in the business of transporting containers from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to various destinations by truck. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants stole from Plaintiffs valuable trade secrets (including customer lists, driver, vendor, and contact lists, pricing lists, and other information) with which CTU formed their own competing transportation business. On July 24, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining CTU from, among other things, doing business with Plaintiffs’ customers and vendors.
On February 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint, naming EMC Transportation Inc. (“EMC”) and its owner Peinan Hu (“Hu”) in place of doe defendants. The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 14, 2021. In it, Plaintiffs allege that after the preliminary injunction order was issued, CTU colluded with Hu to set up EMC as a shell company and funnel CTU’s business through EMC to evade the preliminary injunction order. (SAC, ¶ 2.)
On December 3, 2021, Plaintiffs served Request for Production and Inspection of Documents and Things, Set One (“RFP”) on EMC. On May 3, 2022, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling EMC to provide further responses to the RFP. The court ordered EMC to serve on Plaintiffs verified, Code-compliant further responses to RFP Nos. 1-50 within 15 days. On May 18, 2022, EMC served its supplemental responses to the RFP. After meeting and conferring, EMC served revised supplemental responses to the RFP on July 1, 2022. (Mann-O’Halloran Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. G.)
Golden J contends that the revised supplemental responses do not comply with the court’s May 3, 2022 order and move for an order compelling such compliance.
DISCUSSION
In response to RFP Nos. 1-50, EMC originally asserted that it would conduct a diligent search for and produce responsive non-privileged documents that are within its possession, custody, or control. The court found that this statement of “compliance” was ambiguous and evasive. In its revised supplemental responses, EMC has withdrawn the statement of compliance for RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, and 45 and interposed new objections. This is improper. Any objections not made when the responses were originally due are now waived. And EMC’s attempt to use its original objections in order to avoid production prejudices Golden J, who has already (successfully) moved to compel further responses based on the original representation that EMC intended to produce documents.
The court also finds that EMC’s revised supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 33, 37, 40, and 41 are not code-compliant. To respond that documents have “never been and/or is no longer” in EMC’s possession, custody, or control is evasive. Either EMC has “never” had a document in its possession, custody, or control or EMC “no longer” has a document in its possession, custody, or control (meaning it did at one time have possession, custody, or control), but both cannot be true. EMC must specify which statement is accurate and must identify a person or organization known or believed by EMC to have possession, custody, or control of the document. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) All of that information is still missing from EMC’s revised supplemental responses.
The final category of responses relates to privileged documents. Counsel for EMC has represented that any and all documents listed in the privilege log are the only documents being withheld. (Mann-O’Halloran Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. K.) Although the court agrees with Golden J that EMC’s revised supplemental responses are also ambiguous and evasive, the court finds that the meet and confer process has sufficiently clarified whether production of documents is complete as to RFP Nos. 8, 10, 14, 20, 25, and 31 and 15, 18, 19, 27, 29, 30, 32, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50.
The remedy for failure to comply with a discovery order is not another order compelling compliance with the discovery order, but sanctions as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010. The only sanction Golden J seeks is a monetary sanction. Based on the findings above involving EMC’s revised supplemental responses, the court finds $9,450 in monetary sanctions requested by Golden J is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The court grants in part and denies in part Golden J’s motion to compel compliance.
The court orders EMC to pay $9,450 to Golden J within 30 days of the date of this order.
Golden J is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court