Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV41125, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Adam Cohen’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Yoon Chung Design, Inc. to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), Request Nos. 21-34 and related documents is granted. YCD is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 30 days. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, YCD is to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff Adam Cohen’s request for sanctions on his motion to compel further responses against Defendant Yoon Chung Design, Inc. and its counsel of record, jointly and severally is granted in the reduced amount of $3,310.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Adam Cohen (“Cohen”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Yoon Chung Design, Inc. (“YCD”) (“Defendant”) move to his Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) (“RFP 2”). (Notice Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §§2031.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq.) Plaintiff requests sanctions against YCD and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,310.00. (Notice Motion, pg. 1.)

CRC Rule 2.109 provides, “[e]ach page must be numbered consecutively at the bottom unless a rule provides otherwise for a particular type of document. The page numbering must begin with the first page and use only Arabic numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3). The page number may be suppressed and need not appear on the first page.” (CRC, Rule 2.109.)

Plaintiff’s motion fails to include page numbers on each page of his memorandum after page 2, in violation of CRC Rule 2.109.

On September 18, 2024, this Court held an IDC, wherein this Court deemed the issues discussed in the IDC unresolved. (9/18/24 Minute Order.) Therefore, the Court will consider the instant motion.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff propounded his RFP on YCD. (Decl. of Chen ¶2, Exh. A.) On or about August 6, 2024, YCD served its response to Plaintiff. (Decl. of Chen ¶3, Exh. B.) YCD provided only boilerplate objections to Request Nos. 21 through 35, and, in response to Request No. 36, identified only 4 pages of documents which were nonresponsive. (Decl. of Chen ¶4.) No privilege log was produced, notwithstanding Defendant’s objections based on privacy. (Decl. of Chen ¶4.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 15, 2024. YCD filed its opposition on December 17, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on December 23, 2024.

The Civil Discovery Act provides that a “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2031.010.)

“[E]vidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447.) A party is entitled to discover “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues (which determines admissibility of evidence at trial). (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) Courts have uniformly held that, for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from YCD as to RFP Request Nos. 21-34. The subject discovery requests concern documents relating to communications, business transactions, payments, and agreements between YCD and non-party Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”) (Nos. 21-25, 31, and 33), and between YCD and non-party Carbon 38, Inc. (“Carbon”) (Nos. 26-30, 32, and 34). (See Motion SS, pgs. 2-4.)

These requests seek production of documents concerning YCD’s communications with third parties, including any communications or agreements that may have existed between YCD and the third parties, any services rendered, payments made, and sales or purchase orders exchanged. The requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations that YCD breached the LLC Agreement with Plaintiff by violating the non-compete clause and breached its alleged fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff and ONA by misappropriating the business of the third parties. (See TAC ¶¶81, 102-104 Exh. A.) Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [stating boilerplate objections “[lack] . . . the specificity the statute mandates” and their use may be sanctionable].) To the extent documents are withheld due to an objection, the response must (1) identify with particularity the document to which the objection is being made; and (2) set forth the grounds for the objection, including the production of a privilege log if the objection is based on privilege. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

YCD claims that the requested records are private and has refused to produce a single responsive document based on this objection, notwithstanding Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a stipulated protective order, which this Court entered on October 10, 2023. YCD has no Constitutional right to privacy as a corporation. (Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1287 [stating entities have “no standing to assert a constitutional right to privacy”].) There is no basis for YCD’s objection based on privacy.

Accordingly, YCD is compelled to produce Code-compliant responses to RFP Nos. 21-34 and corresponding documents within 30 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, YCD is to produce a privilege log.

Under C.C.P. §2031.300(c), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (C.C.P. §2031.300(c).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the total amount of $4,310.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record. (Motion, pg. 9.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s request in the reduced amount of $3,310.00, in light of the fact that Plaintiff cannot recover attorneys’ fees for time spent meeting and conferring. The Court calculates sanctions as follows:

([3 hours drafting the instant motion + 3.5 hours reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing] x $500/hour) + $60.00 filing fee = $3,310.00

Sanctions in the amount of $3,310.00 are payable by YCD and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from YCD to RFP Nos. 21-34 and related documents is granted. YCD is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 30 days. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, YCD is to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against YCD and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, is granted in the reduced amount of $3,310.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court