Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 20STCV45192 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV45192, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45192 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 72

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Date: 9/29/22 (8:30 AM)

Case: Jeffrey Qiuhong Yang v. Global Win Capital Corp., et al. (20STCV45192)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Global Win Capital Corporation’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court’s May 10, 2022 Order is DENIED.

Defendant/cross-complainant Global Win Capital Corporation seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 177.5, 2023.030, and 2031.320(c) due to plaintiff’s failure to serve a privilege log, which was ordered by the Court on May 10, 2022. (Walker Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted. Defendant is correct that, prior to service of supplemental responses on May 27, 2022 (Walker Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. E), plaintiff should have thoroughly reviewed the documents produced in response to defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One and determined that redactions were made based on privilege. Nevertheless, plaintiff notified defendant of the oversight on June 17, 2022. (Walker Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. I.) While defendant was entitled to a privilege log, defendant did not have to file this motion to obtain the log. Rather, defendant could have—indeed, should have—met and conferred with plaintiff to obtain the log. Instead of giving plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to provide the privilege log, defendant almost reflexively filed the instant motion four days later. (Freeze Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court notes that, on July 15, 2022, the Court granted defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set Two but declined to impose sanctions because defendant could—and should—have granted a reasonable extension for plaintiff to provide supplemental responses prior to resorting prematurely to motion practice. (7/15/22 Minute Order [“Global Win’s request is denied because it could have granted an extension for Yang to provide supplemental responses, not necessarily the six weeks for which Yang was asking, but an alternative date which would have given counsel for Yang a reasonable opportunity before this motion was filed to address Global Win’s concerns while simultaneously managing her obligations during trial in her other case”].) Defendant demonstrates the same impetuousness in seeking judicial intervention when such intervention may not have been necessary with a showing of professional courtesy. “The law should not create an incentive to take the scorched earth, feet-to-the-fire attitude that is all too common in litigation today.” (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 17.) Granting this motion would not be just because it would only discourage defendant from meeting and conferring with plaintiff when the disputes are easily resolvable.

On September 13, 2022, plaintiff provided the privilege log required by the May 10, 2022 ruling. (Freeze Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. A.) Defendant is correct that plaintiff served the privilege log approximately three months from the May 25, 2022 deadline to comply. Nevertheless, defendant may very well have obtained the privilege log earlier had it opted to meet and confer with plaintiff instead of resorting to the instant motion for sanctions. It should come as no surprise to defendant that plaintiff’s privilege log would only come in connection with the filing of plaintiff’s opposition to a motion defendant apparently planned to bring no matter what.

Lastly, in Reply, with the recently produced privilege log for six documents in hand (see Freeze Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. A), defendant now argues sanctions are warranted precisely because plaintiff produced a privilege log, as opposed to the original basis for the motion, namely, failure to produce a privilege log. To be sure, a privilege log may be insufficient if it fails to identify the general nature of the document/communication claimed to be privileged or to catalog every document and/or communication seemingly withheld or redacted on the basis of privilege. (See Reply at 5-7.) Such shortcomings deprive opposing counsel and the Court of any meaningful ability to challenge or evaluate the assertion of privilege or the withholding of documents (or portions thereof) from production. But, much like what should have been done prior to bringing the instant motion, the proper approach to address these apparent shortcomings in the privilege log is to meet and confer initially concerning the claimed deficiencies. While it appears defendant reached out to plaintiff to convey the arguments about the privilege log that would be made to this Court in the Reply brief (compare Supp. Walker Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. L [9/14/22 Guido email] with Reply at 5-7), there was no sincere effort to engage on the matter. In the absence of any reasonable and meaningful effort to resolve these new issues, the Court will not impose sanctions.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Insofar as defendant believes the recently produced privilege log (Freeze Decl. Ex. A) is lacking or warrants supplementation, the parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to seeking any relief from this Court with respect thereto.