Judge James L. Crandall, Case 22-1244666 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 22-1244666, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

MOTION NOS. 1-3: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

MOTION NOS. 4-6: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

MOTION NOS. 1-3:

Defendant Daniel Y.K. Chan’s motion to compel further responses from plaintiffs Integritox Laboratories, LLC, I2 Laboratory, LLC and OC Laboratory Services, LLC to Defendant’s first set of special interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED as MOOT in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Timeliness:

Plaintiffs served their Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, on June 21, 2022. (Katsuyama Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 4-6.) The Motion was filed on July 18, 2022; and is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer:

Defendant has shown that his counsel sent meet and confer letters on June 22, 2022, to each Plaintiff identifying the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ responses and noting that Plaintiffs had failed to provide signed verification forms. (Katsuyama Decl. Exs. 7-9.) Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a response dated July 1, 2022. (Katsuyama Decl., Ex. 10.) Therefore, Defendant has shown a sufficient attempt to meet and confer on the issues raised by the Motion.

Merits:

Plaintiff Integritox Laboratories, LLC (“Integritox”):

Defendant moves to compel a further response from Integritox to Special Interrogatory Nos. 7, 12, 13 and 18.

Special Interrogatory No. 7:

Special Interrogatory No. 7 seeks “All facts that support YOUR assertion that ‘[b]ecause of this failed inspection, Integritox was unable to collect fees for tests performed from health insurance providers,’ as alleged in Paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiff Integritox objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that discovery is not complete and responded that “after the referenced inspections [] failed, responding party was not properly licensed and could not test or collect fees from insurance carriers.”

Plaintiff Integritox’s response simply restates the allegations in the Complaint without offering any additional facts in support of the allegation in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Plaintiff’s response fails to provide any details as to the alleged failed inspection or the resulting loss of fees or revenue.

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Although Plaintiff Integritox filed an opposition, the opposition does not justify its failure to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 7.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 7 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 12:

Special Interrogatory No. 12 asks plaintiff Integritox to “State all facts that support YOUR assertion that ‘Plaintiffs have been damaged by Chan’s breach by not receiving any value for the services it paid for, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and other expectation and consequential damages,’ as alleged in Paragraph 31 of YOUR COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiff Integritox objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that discovery is not complete and responded that “Dr. Chan was paid for services under the agreement but responding party did not receive value for those services because Dr. Chan did not maintain responding party’s licensure and instead all inspections that he was involved with failed.”

Plaintiff Integritox’s response is inadequate because it fails to provide facts in support of its contention that Defendant’s breach caused it damages such as loss of revenue, reputational harm and expectation/consequential damages. No supporting facts such as amount of any damages, how damages were calculated, identity of any customers impacted, how Plaintiff determined the amount of allegedly lost revenue from those customers; or how Plaintiff calculated its damages are provided.

Although Plaintiff Integritox filed an opposition, the opposition does not justify its failure to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 12.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 12 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 13:

Special Interrogatory No. 13 asks plaintiff Integritox to “State all facts that support YOUR assertion that that ‘Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of Chan’s breach because it suffered reputational harm, lost customers, and lost revenue,’ as alleged in Paragraph 36 of YOUR COMPLAINT.”

Plaintiff Integritox objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that discovery is not complete and responded that “Dr. Chan did not ensure that responding party’s licensure was maintained and it was therefore unable to conduct testing with various clients. Responding party then lost clients who were forced to go elsewhere for testing while responding party was not fully licensed.”

Plaintiff Integritox states that it was unable to conduct testing with various clients and lost clients but fails to provide any information about the identity of the lost clients or how Plaintiff calculated its alleged damages. Plaintiff’s response also fails to address its allegation of reputational harm.

Although Plaintiff Integritox filed an opposition, the opposition does not justify its failure to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 13.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 13 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 18:

Plaintiffs have shown that on October 21, 2021, Plaintiffs served a supplemental response to Special Interrogatory No. 18. (Horner Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant concedes that “Plaintiffs provided supplemental responses identifying the number of employees each had in 2021.” (Reply, p. 3, lns. 20-21.) Therefore, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT as to Special Interrogatory No. 18.

Plaintiff 12 Laboratory, LLC (“12 Laboratory”):

Defendant moves to compel a further response from 12 Laboratory to Special Interrogatory Nos. 4, 12, 13 and 18.

Special Interrogatory No. 4:

Special Interrogatory No. 4 asks plaintiff 12 Laboratory to “State the dates during which “the laboratory was unable to test specimens for its clients,” as alleged in Paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT (the term “COMPLAINT” means Plaintiff 12 Laboratory, LLC’s Complaint in this action).”

Plaintiff 12 Laboratory responded by objecting on the grounds that the “interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible because it does not identify which laboratory or laboratories it is referring to.”

The interrogatory is not vague since it asks plaintiff 12 Laboratory to provide information as to Plaintiff’s own allegations in its Complaint. In fact, the interrogatory directly quotes the Complaint and directs Plaintiff to paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

Accordingly, the request to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13:

Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 served on plaintiff 12 Laboratory are identical to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 served on plaintiff Integritox. Plaintiff 12 Laboratory’s response to these interrogatories is also identical to plaintiff Integritox’s response. Accordingly, the reasons discussed as to plaintiff Integritox, the request to compel a further response to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 18:

OC Laboratory Services, LLC (“OC Laboratory”):

Defendant moves to compel a further response from OC Laboratory to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13 and 18.

Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13:

Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 served on plaintiff OC Laboratory are identical to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 served on plaintiff Integritox. Plaintiff OC Laboratory’s response to these interrogatories is also identical to plaintiff Integritox’s response. Accordingly, the reasons discussed as to plaintiff Integritox, the request to compel a further response to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatory No. 18:

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide supplemental responses within 20-days of the notice of this ruling.

Defendant to give notice.

MOTION NOS. 4-6:

Defendant Daniel Y.K. Chan’s motion to compel Plaintiffs Integritox Laboratories, LLC, 12 Laboratory, LLC and OC Laboratory Services, LLC to comply with their agreement to produce documents in response to Defendant’s first set of requests for production of documents is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

The burden is on the moving party to show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. If the moving party demonstrates good cause, then the opposing party must justify any objections. (Kirkland v Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (Kirkland).)

Defendant has shown that the Parties participated in an informal discovery conference on September 9, 2022, at which the Parties were directed to produce documents and supplemental responses by October 7, 2022. (Katsuyama Supp. Decl. ¶ 2.) On October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs produced 4,746 documents in response to the Requests for Production of Documents. (Horner Decl., ¶ 2.)

Defendant contends that there are still a couple of outstanding issues. First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not identify which documents are responsive to which Requests, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280. (Katsuyama Supp. Decl. ¶ 3.)

Section 2031.280, subdivision (a) states: “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”

Plaintiff are ORDERED to identify which documents are responsive to which Requests in compliance with Section 2031.280, subdivision (a) within 20-days of the notice of this ruling.

Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not produce any documents in response to Request Nos. 10, 16, and 23. Defendant has shown that each of these Requests asks about a material allegation in the Complaint, specifically, that Defendant’s alleged misconduct which resulted in Plaintiffs losing various licenses or certifications that thereby prevented Plaintiffs from conducting biomedical tests.

Plaintiffs responded to Request Nos. 10, 16 and 23 by stating that “responding party will conduct a diligent search and produce all non-privileged documents.” (Katsuyama Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 4-6.)

Plaintiffs contend that they have been unable to fully respond to the Requests because their Finance Director who was terminated in May 2022, “walked out with the laptop computer that she had been issued for use in her job” and “kept several hard drives containing company information and documents.” (Cox Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)

Plaintiffs contend that prior to her termination, the Finance Director took steps to prevent the company from accessing its Dropbox account and Plaintiffs have been unable remove her from the account or access it. (Cox. Decl. 5.) Cox states that Plaintiffs are still in the process of retrieving the data and records. (Cox Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide responsive documents to Request Nos. 10, 16, and 23. Plaintiffs are asked to come prepared to discuss the amount of time they may need to be able to provide the documents responsive to these Requests.

Defendant to give notice.

Future hearing dates

No future hearing dates