Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV05918, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV05918 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 72
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE SERVED ON DEFENDANTS (1) MMK INTERNATIONAL
INC., (2) NATURAL CARE USA, INC., (3) NATURAL COLLECTION CORP., AND (4) RAFI
SHOKRIAN
Date: 4/25/23 (8:30 AM)
Case: FWD Future, LLC et al. v.
Blue Avian Ventures LLC et al. (21STCV05918)
TENTATIVE
RULING:
Plaintiff The Raw Office, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Served on MMK
International Inc. is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff The Raw Office, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Served on Natural
Care USA, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff The Raw Office, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Served on Natural
Collection Corp. is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff The Raw Office, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Served on Rafi
Shokrian is GRANTED IN PART.
In the instant four motions, plaintiff The Raw Office, Inc.
seeks further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos.
2-31 from defendants MMK International Inc. (“MMK”), Natural Care USA, Inc.
(“Natural Care”), and Natural Collection Corp. (“NCC”) (collectively, “entity
defendants”). Plaintiff also seeks further responses to Requests for Production
of Documents from defendant Rafi Shokrian.
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff adequately met and
conferred before filing the instant motions. (2nd Song Decls. ¶¶
2-8.) The fact that defendants found plaintiff’s justifications lacking does
not mean that the plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer were not reasonable
and in good faith.
With respect to No. 2 to all defendants, which asks for defendants’
partnership agreements; No. 3 to all defendants, which asks for documents
identifying defendants’ shareholders, directors, officers, partners, members, managers,
or other owners or operators; No. 3 to Shokrian specifically, which asks for formation
documents for business entities in which Shokrian owned an interest; Nos. 20
and 21 to the entity defendants and Nos. 18 and 19 to Shokrian, which ask for
documents evidencing ownership of and lease of the warehouse used to store the
subject gloves; No. 28 to the entity defendants, which asks for documents identifying
companies that have an interest in defendants; No. 29 to the entity defendants,
which asks for documents identify defendants’ shareholders, directors,
managers, members, and agents; and No. 31 to the entity defendants and No. 26
to Shokrian, which asks for documents evidencing any third party’s possession,
ownership, or control of defendants’ assets, plaintiff alleges the existence of
a common enterprise and conspiracy between defendants and the other
co-defendants to defraud plaintiff. (SAC ¶ 29.) The requested documents are
probative of the relationship between defendants and the other co-defendants
and may demonstrate to what extent defendants may be liable for the acts of the
other co-defendants. Further responses are required as indicated above.
With respect to No. 30 to the entity defendants and No. 25
to Shokrian, which asks for defendants’ insurance policies, the requested
documents are discoverable under CCP § 2017.210. (See CCP § 2017.210 [“A
party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under
which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a
judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for
payments made to satisfy the judgment”].) Further responses are required as
indicated above.
With respect to Nos. 4-8 to the entity defendants and Nos.
4-7 to Shokrian, which seek documents evidencing defendants’ revenue and
income, expenses, debts, as well as defendants’ bank statements and corporate
property with a value of more than $100, as well as Nos. 24 to Natural Care and
NCC, which seeks documents evidencing transfer of funds between Natural Care
and Shokrian, plaintiff contends that the documents are relevant to the alter
ego factors referenced in Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.
(1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-40. However, the requested documents are also
pertinent to defendants’ financial condition, which is not discoverable absent
an order entered pursuant to CCP § 3295(c). Plaintiff contends that the requested
documents “go[] to the heart of the cause of action itself,” which allow for
discovery. (Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91,
quoting GT, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) Even
if true, plaintiff still has to set forth “specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) Plaintiff
does not set forth facts demonstrating how the requested documents will prove that
defendants are alter egos of each other. Plaintiff just states that the
requests were tailored to “obtain information about the fraudulent transaction
perpetrated on Plaintiff, which among other things, the business dealings, the
relationships between Defendant and the co-defendant and their associates, and
their relationships to the transaction.” (Song Decls. ¶ 2.) These
justifications are “mere generalities” that are insufficient to overcome the
presumption against pretrial discovery of financial condition under CCP §
3295(c). (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [“There is an absence of specific facts relating to each
category of materials sought to be produced; the justifications offered for the
production are mere generalities”].) Further, with respect to Nos. 24 to Natural
Care to NCC, the request contains no time period and is therefore overbroad as
to time. No further responses are required as indicated above.
With respect to Nos. 9-19 and 22-27 to MMK; Nos. 10, 11, 15,
16, 17, 22, 23, 25-27 to Natural Care and NCC; and Nos. 9, 11-17, 20-24 to
Shokrian, defendants responded, “After diligent search and reasonable inquiry
Responding Party is unable to produce responsive documents because they never
existed.” For certain responses (No. 17 to Natural Care, No. 17 to NCC, and Nos.
11-17 to Shokrian) within these ranges of requests, defendants indicated that
the responses are no longer in their possession, custody, or control. These
responses comply with CCP § 2031.230. Defendants affirmed that a diligent
search and reasonable inquiry was made and that they cannot comply because the
requested documents have never existed or are no longer in defendants’
possession, custody, or control. Because defendants stated that they cannot
produce “responsive documents,” the statements of inability to comply pertains
to the requested categories of documents in their entirety. Unlike the other
requests, where defendants stated that there will be no production “based upon
the objections raised herein,” there is no indication that defendants relied on
their objections in determining that they cannot comply with the requests.
With respect to requests where defendants indicated the
Bates stamp numbers of responsive documents (Nos. 9, 12-14, 18 and 19 to
Natural Care and NCC and Nos. 8, 10 to Shokrian), plaintiff seeks production of
the requested documents in its native form, such as WhatsApp messages. However,
the document requests state that production may be satisfied by serving legible
copies of the requested documents. (1st Song Decls. ¶ 2 & Exs. A
at 2.) Accordingly, defendants complied with the document requests by serving
documents. No further responses are required as indicated above.
The motions are GRANTED IN PART. The motions are denied and
granted as follows:
MMK International Inc.: GRANTED – 2, 3, 20, 21, 28-31; DENIED
– 4-8, 9-19, 22-27
Natural Care USA, Inc.: GRANTED – 2, 3, 20, 21, 28-31; DENIED
– 4-8, 9-19, 22-27
Natural Collection Corp.: GRANTED – 2, 3, 20, 21, 28-31; DENIED
– 4-8, 9-19, 22-27
Rafi Shokrian: GRANTED – 2, 3, 18, 19, 25, 26; DENIED – 4-17,
20-24
No later than fifteen (15) days hereof, defendants are ordered
to serve further verified responses, without objection, and responsive
documents for the granted requests as indicated above.
Given the mixed result, no monetary sanctions are
imposed.