Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Jones et al v. California Credits Group, LLC", Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present is the “Motion to Compel Further Response” filed by moving parties Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Steve Jones, Brian Cescolini, Jolini Corporation, and Universal Group Holdings LLC (here “MPs”) on 4/19/22.  The Motion is DENIED.

The Motion asks the Court to compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant California Credits Group, Inc. (“CCG”) to provide a further response to MPs’  Requests For Production, Set Two, for Request No. 42 – to which CCG only objected. But a motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (C.C.P. §  2031.310(b)(1).)  MPs have not met that requirement here. 

MPs argue that the financial information sought in Request No. 42 is necessary to show that CCG decided “to weaponize its contracts” after 2013, that “an uptick following the repeal

of the EZ Credit program” will illustrate a pattern and practice of penalizing its clients, and “that, after the EZ Program ended in 2013, CCG transformed from a tax services provider into a litigation machine and brought suit against its clients to recoup fees and late charges it was not owed…” (ROA 243, pp. 3 and 9; ROA 263, p. 5.)  But CCG here did not initiate this lawsuit - MPs did.  MPs have not presented any evidence or cogent argument to otherwise support this theory. As MPs have thus failed to show good cause to compel the production of CCG’s financial information as requested here, the Motion is denied.

Counsel for MPs to give notice of this ruling.