Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Coast Southwest, Inc. v. CCW et al", Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court is “Defendant CCW’S Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Coast Southwest, Inc. to Request For Production Of Documents (Set One).” The Motion is GRANTED IN PART.

In light of the withdrawals identified on reply, the Requests for Production (“RFPs”) still at issue are Nos. 1, 2, 14, 72, 75, 90, 101, 107, 112-116, and 118-119.

The Motion is GRANTED IN PART for Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 72.

For RFP Nos. 1 and 2, each as presented appears overbroad. But CCW here seems to be arguing that it is actually seeking only documents reflecting or discussing any oral or written agreement with Coast and any negotiations related to or drafts of the Distributorship Agreement. Subject to that limitation, the Motion as to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 is granted.

For RFP No. 14, the request is overbroad, but Coast needs to respond as to any documents reflecting or discussing any “promises by SAINTROND to CCW.” Subject to that limitation, the Motion as to RFP No. 14 is granted. If there are none, Coast must so state.

For RFP No. 72, the request is overbroad, and potentially requests every document concerning every transaction for a 9-year relationship. But CCW asserts that what is really sought is the recent payment history for Coast. The RFP should thus be limited to records reflecting the payment history for the last 2 years of the relationship. Subject to that limitation, the Motion as to RFP No. 72 is granted.

The Motion is otherwise DENIED.

For RFP No. 75, the request is clearly overbroad, and is thus denied, without prejudice to a more appropriately limited request.

For RFP Nos. 90, 101, 112-116, and 118-119, each is effectively a “contention” RFP, which does not comport with C.C.P. § 2031.030(c)(1). The Motion as to each is thus denied.

For RFP No. 107, the request seeks Coast’s financial information for the last 5 years of the relationship, not limited to that upon which Coast claims to rely in seeking damages. Some privacy rights even for an artificial entity are recognized by the law. (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Sup.Ct. (Panther) (2006) 137 CA4th 579, 594.) As this request clearly triggers Coast’s privacy interests, the Court must thus balance its privacy rights against CCW’s claimed need for the discovery at issue, and consider any feasible alternatives that would serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Here, CCW has failed to show why the information at issue is needed, or that no less intrusive means are available to pursue the subjects it wishes to explore based thereon. The Motion as to RFP No. 107 is therefore denied.

Plaintiff Coast Southwest, Inc. is to provide supplemental verified responses for RFP Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 72, in accordance with the foregoing, within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Defendant CCW is to give notice.