Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Wang v. Wang, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Before the court are three discovery motions filed by Plaintiff, Fan Wang (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Yaomin Wang’s (“Defendant Wang”) further responses to Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set Two is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Fame Luck Worldwide Co. LTD’s (“Defendant Fame Luck”) further responses to Requests for Admission (“RFA”), Set Two is deemed MOOT; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Fame Luck’s further responses to RFP, Set Two is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Further responses in accordance with this ruling are to be served within 15 days.

MOTION 1: Requests for Admissions to Fame Luck (ROA 338)

Defendants’ omnibus opposition asserts that on September 13, 2022, Fame Luck served supplemental responses to RFA, Set Two withdrawing all objections and providing code-compliant responses. A review of the responses confirms that they are verified, no objections are asserted, and a code-compliant response has been provided for each request. Additionally, Plaintiff’s reply brief makes no argument related to the RFA responses, other than to confirm that supplemental responses were served.

Accordingly, the Court deems the RFA motion MOOT.

MOTION 2: Requests for Production to Defendant Wang (ROA 324)

Defendants’ omnibus opposition reflects that on October 11, 2022, Defendant Wang served verified supplemental responses to RFP, Set Two. (Ex. 2 to Green Decl., ROA 376.) In his reply to the omnibus opposition, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant Wang served supplemental RFP responses, but contends that the responses to RFP Nos. 78 and 79 remain defective. Plaintiff makes no argument as to the remaining RFP in this set (Nos. 70-77). Thus, based on the reply, the only RFP remaining at issue on this motion are Nos. 78 and 79.

The Court finds that Defendant Wang’s supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 78 and 79 are code compliant and no further response is needed. The supplemental response to RFP No. 78 includes a proper statement of compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff complains that he cannot tell whether the documents produced are all the responsive communications available. The Court finds no ambiguity here as Defendant Wang’s response states that he will fully comply by producing all documents in his possession.

As to RFP No. 79, Defendant Wang indicated he is unable to comply because responsive documents have been lost or destroyed. Although he does not set forth the actual name of the financial institution that has possession of the records, he references the subpoenas “which have already been served by Plaintiff on the subject financial institutions.” Plaintiff is obviously aware of which financial institutions he has subpoenaed records from. Thus, the Court finds the response sufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Accordingly, the Court deems the motion MOOT as to RFP Nos. 70-77 and DENIES the motion as to RFP Nos. 78 and 79.

MOTION 3: Requests for Production to Fame Luck (ROA 296)

Defendant Fame Luck asserts it has now served verified supplemental responses to requests for production, set two. Defendant Fame Luck has withdrawn all objections and provided code compliant responses to requests nos. 58-72, 74-77, 79, 81-87, 91, and 96-97. Accordingly, seven requests, nos. 88-90 and 92-95 remain.

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 the discovery sought by RFP Nos. 92-95, as they seek documents that are clearly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. RFP Nos. 92-95 seek Fame Luck’s financial records from 2015 to the present. Fame Luck asserted various objections. While the requests do seek sweeping financial records of Fame Luck that implicate a privacy right, given the fraud claims at issue here, Plaintiff has shown a legitimate countervailing interest in the records. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [discussing privacy objection].) The requests appear proper as they seek discovery relevant both to tracing the funds at issue, and to liability and they are limited in time period. In addition, as to the burdensome objection, Fame Luck failed to file any substantive opposition and thus failed to justify its objection. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [burden shifts to objector after good cause shown for RFPs].) The motion is thus GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 92-95.

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to show good cause for the discovery sought by RFP Nos. 88-90. These RFP seek very broad information related to Fame Luck’s capital contributions and capital accounts that does not appear reasonably tailored to the needs of the case. For instance, most of these RFP seek all documents related to a certain topic without any limitation in time. There is no indication that Plaintiff has made any attempt to limit the scope of these RFP. The motion is thus DENIED as to RFP Nos. 88-90.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(f).)

Plaintiff’s sanctions requests are DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(h) & 2031.320(b) [RFPs]; 2033.290(d) [RFAs].) The Court finds that sanctions are not warranted given Plaintiff’s insufficient meet and confer efforts as reflected in the moving papers.

Moving party to give notice.