Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2019-1120703, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Richard Kerns’ motion to compel Defendants Aaron Egdahl, Brian Watts and Stefan Rohr’s (collectively, “Defendants”) further responses to RFP, Set One, Numbers 1-12 is GRANTED.
On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff served his first set of Request for Production of Documents on Defendants EGDAHL, WATTS and ROHR. All three of the individual Defendants served responses to the Request for Production of Documents on June 10, 2022. While the individual Defendants each served a separate response, the substance of the responses were identical. The identical responses of these Defendants to Plaintiff’s document requests consisted entirely of objections, without any commitment to produce any responsive documents.
Plaintiff contends that the documents regarding the disposition of former entity On Target’s assets are relevant to Plaintiff’s contention that On Target Solutions, LLC is the successor in interest of On Target and the documents are therefore discoverable. Moreover, those records may well reveal the involvement of each of the individual Defendants in the transition from On Target to On Target Solutions and thereby provide further support for their liability as well.
In Opposition, Defendants contend there is no good cause for the documents sought as they are in no way relevant to the instant case that involves only UCL claims.
In California, discovery is purposefully broad. With certain exceptions, parties have a right to inquire about any matter which – based on reason, logic and common sense – might (1) be admissible, (2) lead to admissible evidence, or (3) reasonably assist that party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial and/or facilitating resolution. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557).
The court has analyzed these opposing positions and finds that good cause has been established. The UCL, though not necessarily as inclusive as plaintiff claims, is nevertheless extensive and plaintiff is required to prove the involvement of each individual defendant. Thus, Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements for the motions and the burden shifts to Defendants to justify any objections made to the document production. They have not done so.
As noted by Plaintiff in Reply, another party’s production of responsive documents does not excuse these Defendants from answering discovery, especially since Defendants have failed to provide any facts to support their objections that producing such documents would cause unwarranted annoyance, undue burden and/or expense. Plaintiff is not asking these Defendants to reproduce the exact same records Plaintiff already has, rather he is seeking any responsive documents these individual Defendants have that may differ from what other parties have already provided. Plaintiff is entitled to documents within Defendants’ possession, custody or control and, if Defendants do not have any such documents, or, if they do not have any documents other than what has been already produced by OTS, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified response indicating such.
With regard to concerns regarding private information of third parties, the parties should enter into a stipulated protective order to protect those interests. Indeed, Plaintiff has indicated a willingness to do so. The parties are ordered to promptly meet and confer regarding a protective order and Plaintiff is ordered to submit a stipulated protective order for the Court’s approval within 14-days.
Defendants’ responses are due no later than 30 days after the Court signs the protective order.
Lastly, Plaintiff improperly combined three motions into one and only paid one filing fee. Therefore, the order granting Plaintiff’s motion is CONDITIONED upon Plaintiff’s payment of $120.00 in additional filing fees within 14-days of this hearing.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.