Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV40095, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40095    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from habitability issues. Plaintiffs are 23 tenants residing in the subject premises allegedly owned or managed by the Defendants, Hung R. Wang, Vivine H. Wang, Marvin Paez, and VHW, LLC. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on October 19, 2020. Defendants have cross-complained against Plaintiffs, with a First Amended Cross-Complaint filed March 28, 2022.

            On April 12, 2024, 21 of the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for protective order. Plaintiffs Jeremy Katz and Adrian Katz filed a joinder to the motion on April 22, 2024.[1] On May 6, 2024, Defendants Hung R. Wang, Vivine H. Wang, and VHW, LLC filed their opposition, and Defendant Paez filed a separate opposition adopting the same arguments. Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 10, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

The recipient of a discovery request may move for a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, 2031.060, 2033.080.) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Ibid.) “The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Id. at p. 318.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs seek a protective order to address the burden of responding to identical Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, and Requests for Production that each Defendant propounded to each Plaintiff. (Markus Decl. ¶ 3.)[2] Plaintiffs contend that this has resulted in 264 sets of discovery and over 11,000 requests. (Ibid.) Due to the identity of the issues involved, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants could have collectively propounded the requests to each Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs also state that they will not object to the requests as compound to the extent the requests apply to all Plaintiffs at once. (Mtn. 4:5-8.)

            “‘Oppression’ means the ultimate effect of the burden of responding to the discovery is ‘incommensurate with the result sought.’” (People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552.) In Sarpas, the court found that second and third sets of interrogatories propounded in regard to each of hundreds of customers were “unwarrantedly oppressive or unduly burdensome or expensive” because each of the second sets contained 4,400 interrogatories, and each of the third sets contained 1,200 interrogatories, even though proof of individualized harm was not required for restitution under the UCL. (Id. at pp. 1552-53.)

By contrast, each Plaintiff in this case asserts their own claim for damages, and particularized requests are necessary to address each Plaintiff’s individual harm. The multiplicity of requests is a natural result of 23 Plaintiffs selecting to sue 4 Defendants on 10 causes of action. Each Defendant is entitled to ascertain information pertaining to their potential liability as against each Plaintiff. The burden of answering multiple sets of discovery is not undue nor disproportionate to the needs of the case.     

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order is DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.