Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Viewpoint Technology, Inc. v. Geereddy", Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPD.

Plaintiffs Viewpoint Technology, Inc. and Larry Hayashigawa move to compel Defendants Yeshwanth Geereddy, Reddy Marri, and Tellus Power Green to provide further responses to the demand for production of documents, set one.  For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendants primary contention in opposing this motion is that Plaintiffs did not adequately meet and confer prior to filing this motion.  Defendants served their original responses on February 15, 2022.  (Spitzer Dec., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter on February 17, 2022.  (Flyer Dec., ¶ 4 and Ex. C.)  Counsel for the parties met and conferred on March 7, 2022, and Defendants’ counsel apparently promised to produce documents by March 11, 2022. Counsel for Plaintiffs sent an email on March 7, 2022, memorializing this conversation.  (Id. at ¶ 5 and Ex. E.)  But no documents were received by March 11, 2022.  (Id.)  Plaintiff’s counsel inquired again on March 17, 2022, and defense counsel responded shortly thereafter that he was finalizing [the document production] and will be producing shortly.”  (Spitzer Dec., ¶ 5.)  This motion was filed the next day. 

Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 requires a good faith attempt to resolve “each issue presented by the motion.”  There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1294.) “[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”  (Id.) The particular level of effort required in each case depends on the circumstances including the amount of discovery propounded, the time available to confer before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which a party was complicit in the lapse of available time. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 432.) “An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered. Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. These are considerations entrusted to the trial court’s discretion and judgment, with due regard for all relevant circumstances.” (Id. at 432–433.)

Plaintiffs’ initial letter dated February 17, 2022, discussed the impropriety of Defendants’ objections.  But it should also be noted that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s email dated March 7, 2022, requested an additional production of documents and did not mention a request for further responses to the inspection demands.  (Flyer Dec., Ex. E.)  Then, on March 17, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up again asking only the following with respect to the discovery at issue: “By the way, are defendants planning to produce documents as we discussed on 3/7/2022.”  There is no evidence showing that Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel specifically regarding the request for further discovery responses (as opposed to production of documents) at any time after February 17, 2022.  Thus, while Plaintiffs’ adequately addressed the concerns regarding Defendants’ discovery responses in the early stages of the meet and confer process, Defendants’ failure to produce further responses was evidently somewhat justified.  The Court will take this into consideration when determining the appropriate amount of monetary sanctions, but the Court will not deny the motion for failure to meet and confer.

A motion for order compelling further responses to inspection demands “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).)  To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery, such as why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)  If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs’ inspection demands are supported by good cause.  The demands at issue seek information relating to the corporation at issue.  Defendants asserted several objections to the inspection demands.  They objected that the demands are overly broad and unduly burdensome.  They objected that the demands sought documents that are irrelevant or confidential.   Good cause having been shown, the burden is on Defendants to justify their objections.  Defendants do not discuss, let alone justify, their objections, either in their separate statement or in their memorandum. 

Defendants’ objections are overruled, and Defendants are ordered to serve further verified responses without the objections within 30 days of service of notice of this ruling.

Defendants are ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $660 to Plaintiffs within 30 days of service of notice of this ruling. 

Plaintiffs to give notice.