Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "GMEP Engineers v. Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group, Inc.", Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, GMEP Engineers’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Production from Defendant, Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) is GRANTED in part.

On a motion to compel further RFP, the moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)  “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.”  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for at least some of the discovery sought.  At issue here are 150 document requests directed to Defendant.  The requests are facially overbroad because they seek all documents related to removal of Plaintiff’s stamp from the projects and removal of Plaintiff as the engineer of record on the projects.  As Defendant argues, this could potentially encompass the entire project files.  However, Plaintiff’s reply brief indicates that what is actually sought is narrower.  Plaintiff states in its reply brief that what is sought are documents that show Defendant removed Gary Zhou’s stamp from the engineering plans for the specific projects and documents that show Defendant removed Gary Zhou as the engineer of record for those projects.  (Reply 6:19-23.)

As so limited, the Court finds good cause has been shown for the RFP as they seek documents clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this litigation.

Defendant responded to each RFP with various objections and the following statement for each: “Without in any way waiving any of these objections, all of which are asserted anew and remain in full force and effect, and subject to the same, Responding Party will produce such responsive non-privileged documents, as to which no objections have been asserted, that are in its possession and which it has been able by reasonable efforts to locate.”

The Court finds the above response is not code compliant.  The response does not indicate whether the production will be allowed in whole or in part and that all documents that are in Defendant’s possession and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)  Further, Defendant’s response that it will produce “such responsive non-privileged documents, as to which no objections have been asserted” is evasive as objections have been asserted for each request.  Thus, it is unclear whether Defendant is withholding documents based on the objections.  Further, it is unclear whether responsive documents exist or are actually in Defendant’s possession.  A code compliant further response must be provided.  If no responsive documents are in Defendant’s possession, custody or control, a proper representation of inability to comply should be given.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Defendant’s objection as to overbreadth is well-taken.  However, as noted above, Plaintiff’s reply brief narrows what is actually sought.  Thus, as limited, the requests are narrowly tailored to the issues in this case.

Defendant failed to offer any reasoned argument for its remaining objections in the RFP responses and thus failed to meet its burden of justifying those objections.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

The Court finds that Defendant has not waived its objection based on confidentiality and trade secrets.  Although Defendant failed to raise such objection in each specific request, it did assert the objection in the “General Objections” section to the RFP responses.  (See, e.g., Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516-1517.)

Based on the opposition, Defendant appears willing to produce responsive documents if the parties sign a “confidentiality agreement” limiting the use of the documents to this litigation.  Because the documents sought by the RFP at issue could potentially encompass Defendant’s confidential materials and because Defendant is otherwise willing to produce documents, the Court will order the parties to meet and confer on an appropriate stipulated protective order to limit dissemination of the documents to this litigation.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part.  Defendant is ordered to provide code compliant further responses to the RFP at issue in accordance with this ruling within 15 days.  Defendant is further ordered to produce responsive documents limited to documents that show Defendant removed Plaintiff/Gary Zhou’s stamp from the engineering plans for the projects referenced in the RFPs and documents that show Defendant removed Plaintiff/Gary Zhou as the engineer of record for those projects.  Said documents are to be produced within 7 days of entry of a stipulated protective order.

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted here due to Defendant’s failure to produce responsive documents for over eight months despite its counsel’s repeated assurances to Plaintiff’s counsel that documents were being compiled and would be produced.  The Court imposes monetary sanctions of $2,250 against Defendant and its counsel of record Noel E. Macaulay of Schwartz & Janzen, LLP, payable to Plaintiff within 30 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(h) & 2031.320(b).)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.050 is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Moving party to give notice.