Judge Gregory Keosian, Case 20STCV46712 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV46712, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46712 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 61

Cross-Complainants JTI Electrical and Instrumentation LLC and JTI Electrical & Instrumentation Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set Three, from Plaintiffs Seven Points Management, Inc. and Walnut, LLC are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories No. 8.7 and 8.8, and as to Request for Production No. 21. The motions are otherwise DENIED.

Cross-Complainants to provide notice.

I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Cross-Complainants JTI Electrical & Instrumentation, LLC and JTI Electrical & Instrumentation, Inc. (JTI) moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories from Plaintiffs Seven Points Management, Inc. (SPM) and Walnut, LLC (Walnut). JTI specifically seeks further responses to Interrogatories No. 3.7, 8.4, 8.7, and 8.8, from both Plaintiffs. These interrogatories were as follows:

1. No. 3.7: Asked for specific information concerning the licenses issued by public entities and held by Plaintiffs, to which they responded only that they possessed “standard business licenses”;

2. No. 8.4: Asked for Plaintiffs’ monthly income at the time of the incident and how it was calculated, to which they responded by referring to documents entitled “Production Report Analysis” and “preliminary estimate of costs relating to future shutdown”;

3. No. 8.7: Asked Plaintiffs to state the total income they have lost as a result of the incident, and how it was calculated, to which Plaintiffs responded by pointing to the same documents referenced in their response to Interrogatory No. 8.4;

4. No. 8.8: Asked Plaintiffs whether they would lose income in the future as a result of the incident, and to state the facts and calculations supporting the figure provided, to which Plaintiffs responded by reference to the same documents referenced in responding to Interrogatories No. 8.4 and 8.7.

JTI argues that Plaintiffs have failed to provide the specific business license information requested by Interrogatory No. 3.7, and because they claim lost income as a result of the incident, they ought to be made to provide the facts supporting that contention. Although Plaintiffs have cited to certain documents, JTI argues that these documents are opaque and non-responsive to the interrogatories. (Separate Statement at p. 8.)

Plaintiffs in opposition argue that they have served responses that have rendered the present motions moot. (Veeneman Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs do not present the supplemental responses with their opposition, but JTI in reply states that further responses are needed as to Interrogatories No. 8.7 and 8.8, as the supplemental responses state only a dollar amount of what was lost, without providing a calculation, based on the argument that the interrogatories are properly directed toward personal injury matters, not construction defect cases. (Reply at pp. 2–4.) JTI’s argument for further responses is persuasive, however: if Plaintiffs are able to provide figures for their claimed losses, they should be able to show their work in reaching that figure. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories No. 8.7 and 8.8.

JTI also moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 17–23, specifically seeking a further response to Request No. 21, which seeks Plaintiffs “tax returns for the subject facility from 2017 to the present,” and to which Plaintiffs offered only objections, and seeking production of documents as to the other request pursuant to statements of compliance offered thereto. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, argue in opposition that they’ve provided supplemental responses and have produced documents, but stand by their objections to the request seeking their tax returns. (Opposition at p. 1.)

“Tax returns are privileged from disclosure. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection. The tax return privilege is not absolute and will not be upheld when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” (Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy, LLP (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1098, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)

Here, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claims is inconsistent with waiver of the privilege. Admittedly, Plaintiffs’ claims concern construction defects, and not tax-related misconduct as was the case in Wilson v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 825, which involved a plaintiff suing her accountant for misadvising her on her taxes. However, Plaintiffs allege claims to lost income resulting from Defendants’ misconduct. And while no California appellate authority has ruled on the matter, a persuasive consensus of federal courts interpreting California law suggests that the assertion of lost income places one’s tax returns at issue for the relevant period. (See Rosales v. Crawford and Company (E.D. Cal. 2021) 2021 WL 4429468, at *6; Valdez v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 3989583, at *5.) The relevant period here concerns 2017 to the present, as 2017 is the date alleged for the formation of the contracts at issue. (Complaint ¶ 12.)

Accordingly, and in summary, the motions are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories No. 8.7 and 8.8, and as to Request for Production No. 21. The motions are otherwise DENIED.