Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00049676-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00049676-CU-FR-CTL JOHNSTON VS ELROD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is Granted.

Defendant has failed to produce any documents and failed to produce a privilege log. Defendant primarily argues that the requests are irrelevant and over-broad, the complaint is conclusionary and the corporation has a right to privacy. The Court rejects all four.

There are sufficient facts alleged in the Complaint to justify the requests at issue. The test for discovery requests is not relevance; the test is whether the documents are calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. These requests pass the test-they are reasonably particularized and not overly broad.

'[C]orporations have no California right to privacy that is protected by the California Constitution or statutory law. The nature and scope of a corporate entity's right to privacy is a question for the courts that depends on the circumstances of a given legal dispute.' (Community Action Agency of Butte County v. Superior Court of Butte County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 221, 238 fn. 10 (quotation marks and alterations omitted), review denied (Aug. 24, 2022).) Under these facts, the Court finds that Defendant does not have a right to privacy of the requested documents, nor does it have a right to privacy on behalf of its employees. Even assuming, however, Defendant's assertion of a right to privacy on behalf of its employees is valid, Defendant failed to identify which of Plaintiff's requests are violative of any right to privacy relating to employees of LST Inc.

The Court orders Defendant to submit written responses, without objections, under penalty of perjury and produce responsive documents to RFP Nos. 2–11, 13–21, 23, 24, 27 and 28 within twenty (20) days.

Regarding sanctions, the Court finds the positions taken by Defendant are without substantial justification. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions of $2,335 ($2,275 in attorney fees and $60 in costs), to be paid within thirty (30) days.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082745  20