Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC673421, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC673421 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: 74
Chen v. Global-IP
Cayman, et al.
Defendant Global-IP Cayman’s Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
BACKGROUND
On
August 23, 2017, Plaintiff Chris Chen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for
wrongful termination against Defendants Global-IP Cayman; Global IP USA, Inc.;
Yuen Cheung Wong; Bahram Pourmand; Shiwen Fan; Zheng Wang; Shiyue Liu; Henry
Fan; Bronzelink Holdings Limited; and DOES 1 through 20.
On
March 6, 2024, Defendant Global-IP Cayman (“GIP”) filed its Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One). On June 7, 2024,
Defendant Bronzelink Holdings Limited (“BHL”) joined the motion. On June 20,
2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On June 26, 2024, Defendant GIP filed a
reply.
LEGAL STANDARD
¿¿ Requests
for Production of Documents
¿¿ A
propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a
demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or
statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is
“without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)
Code
Complaint Response
A
code-compliant response to a request for production consists of any of the
following: (1) a statement that the party will comply, (2) a representation
that the party lacks the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.)
A
statement that the party will comply must state that the Request for Production
(“RPD”) “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)
“If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a
statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with
respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(a).)
“A representation of inability to comply with
the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall
affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an
effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether
the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never
existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding
party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person
or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or
control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)
If
an objection is made the responding party must “[i]dentify with particularity
any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information
falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is
being made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(b)(1).)
MEET AND CONFER
Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(b)(2) a motion to compel further
responses to a request for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and
confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(2).)
“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts
showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Here,
Defendant GIP advances the declaration of its counsel of record, Sean
Mann-O’Halloran, attesting to meet and confer efforts made prior to the filing
of its motion to compel further responses. From June 2, to July 7, 2023,
Mann-O’Halloran met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel Sarah Kelly-Kilgore
regarding the issues with the served responses via email and telephone call.
(Mann-O’Halloran Decl., ¶¶5-6, Ex. C.) Plaintiff was granted an extension after
representing to Mann-O’Halloran that Plaintiff would respond to the concerns
raised and make a document production on or about August 1, 2023. (Id.
at ¶6.) Supplemental responses were not served until September 18, 2023,
following subsequent meet and confer efforts from August 18, 2023 and September
13, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶8-9, Exs. D-E.) The parties met and conferred
regarding the supplemental responses again from October 26, 2023 through
February 20, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶10-11. Exs. F-G.) On December 14, 2023,
Plaintiff produced five documents, which consisted of four highly redacted tax
returns showing portions of Plaintiff’s income from 2018 onwards and one string
of text messages between Plaintiff and Youssefzadeh. (Id. at ¶12.) On
February 8, 2024, Plaintiff produced a one-page PDF document of a communication
between Plaintiff and Umar Javed. (Id. at ¶13.)
Therefore,
Defendant GIP has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
GIP moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve on Defendant GIP
supplemental responses to the first set of Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”)
and produce a privilege log. Defendant GIP contends Plaintiff (1) served
non-compliant responses and supplemental responses to certain RFPs; (2)
improperly refused to produce certain categories of documents; and (3) has
refused to provide a privilege log.
RFP No. 63
“All
DOCUMENTS evidencing any communications between YOU and Emil Youssefzadeh from
June 26, 2017 to the present.”
RFP No. 64
“All
DOCUMENTS evidencing any communications between YOU and Umar Javed from June
26, 2017 to the present.”
In
response to these RFPs, Plaintiff objected on the grounds of vagueness,
ambiguity, overbreadth, harassment, oppression, burden, equal availability, and
attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine.
Plaintiff’s
responses to RFP No. 63 and 64 are not code-compliant with Code of Civil
Procedure sections 2031.210 because they do not contain a complete statement of
compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection that
specifies with particularity the document being objected to. As to RFP No. 63,
Plaintiff responds he will produce non-privileged communications between him
and Mr. Youssefzadeh relating to GIP or Plaintiff’s employment and termination.
Likewise, Plaintiff responds there are no non-privileged communications between
Plaintiff and Mr. Javed after June 26, 2017, that relate to Defendant GIP as to
RFP No. 64. There is no statement affirming that a diligent search and a
reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with these demands.
Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient factual information in
response to these RFPs that would aid Defendant GIP in evaluating the merits of
the privilege claim. Plaintiff also fails to provide a privilege log to support
his claim of privilege. Moreover, objections for being “overbroad,”
“burdensome,” or “oppressive” are valid only when the responding party asserts
an undue burden based on the “quantum of work required” to satisfy the
production. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d
407, 417.) Moreover, these RFPs are limited to communications between Plaintiff
and two third-parties from June 26, 2017, to present, which is limited in time
and scope. Here, Plaintiff merely objects on these grounds because he asserts
he has already provided to Defendant GIP USA, Inc. all non-privileged documents
responsive to these requests. Finally, Defendant GIP has shown that the
communications are relevant to bias and credibility because Mr. Youssefzadeh
and Mr. Javed are percipient witnesses and were witnesses for Plaintiff in an
arbitration case against Defendants BHL and GIP concerning the same claims at
issue in this lawsuit.
Request for Monetary Sanctions
When
a request for monetary sanctions is concurrently filed with a motion to compel
responses, “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging
in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct,
or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).)
Additionally, “If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this
title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)
Here,
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $14,760.00 for a total of 18.0 hours consisting of
(1) 8.0 hours drafting Motion and supporting documents including exhibits,
notice, declaration, and proposed order; and (2) 10.0 hours reviewing the
opposition, preparing the reply brief, and attending oral argument at an hourly
rate of $820. As discussed above, Plaintiff did not provide code-compliant
responses and no other circumstances suggest imposing sanctions would be
unjust.
Thus,
the Court will impose $9,000 for 18.0 hours at the reduced rate of $500 per
hour because of the motion’s lack of complexity.
CONCLUSION
The
court grants Defendant Global-IP Cayman’s motion to compel further responses to
of request for production of documents (set one) and privilege log. Plaintiff Chris Chen is ordered to serve,
verified, supplemental responses to request for production of documents (set
one) and produce a privilege log within 10 days. Plaintiff shall pay $9,000 to Defendant’s
counsel in sanctions within 30 days of this order.
Defendant
shall give notice.