Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 18BBCV00174, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18BBCV00174    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 3, 2023                                   TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         KAIRI HARVIG v. VALERIO CHIAROTTI, an individual; DR. GREGORY FONTANA, an individual; JENNIFER WEBER, an individual; TERRAROSSAUSA, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25.

CROSS:                        VALERIO CHIAROTTI, an individual, v. KAIRI HARVIG, an individual, and ROES 1 through 20.

CASE NO.:                 18BBCV00174

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Kairi Harvig

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Valerio Chiarotti

SERVICE:                              Filed November 29, 2022

OPPOSITION:                       Filed December 21, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to her request for production of documents set six and special interrogatories set two.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Kairi Harvig’s (“Harvig”) claim that Defendant and Cross-Complainant Valerio Chiarotti (“Chiarotti”) deprived Harvig of her 50% interest in marital assets pursuant to a December 29, 2015, final decree of divorce (“Divorce Judgment”).

            Harvig filed a fourth amended complaint (“FAC”) on February 3, 2022, against Defendants Valerio Chiarotti, Dr. Gregory Fontana, Jennifer Weber, TerraRossaUSA, LLC, and Does 1 through 25, alleging seven causes of action for (1) conversion, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) indemnity, (4) declaratory relief, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against Fontana, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against Weber, and (7) aiding and abetting.

            On January 31, 2022, Chiarotti filed a third amended cross-complaint (“TACC”) against Harvig alleging five causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) conversion, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (5) declaratory relief. Chiarotti alleges in the SACC that Harvig took steps to deprive him of access to the equally split marital property.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to special interrogatories numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 25.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to special interrogatories numbers 21 and 22.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            Related Case Background

             Plaintiff asserts that the discovery at issue in the present motion pertains to whether Defendant paid himself excessive compensation as the controlling party of Eurobiz, which Defendant was granted full responsibility of as a result of the divorce decree entered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case number BD621055 (“Divorce Decree”).

            Plaintiff provides she is a fifty percent shareholder of Eurobiz as a result of the Divorce Decree. Plaintiff provides that on May 9, 2018, Defendant was held in contempt of court and Plaintiff was awarded attorneys’ fees and costs of $46,105.20. (Lewis Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff provides that in the divorce proceedings on April 27, 2022, she obtained an assignment order assigning her all of Defendant’s income from Eurobiz. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff also provides that she propounded discovery requests in the divorce proceedings, but that Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s orders. (Id. ¶¶ 11-13.)

            Discovery at Issue

            Plaintiff provides she propounded discovery requests on Defendant on September 14, 2022, which included a request for production of documents and special interrogatories. (Lewis Decl. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant responded on October 13, 2022, with objections. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues that the discovery requests go to the issue of compensation Defendant received from Eurobiz. Plaintiff provides that Eurobiz’s tax returns show that Defendant borrowed $346,611 from 2016 to 2021.

            Plaintiff’s motion is to compel further discovery after Defendant served mainly objection-only responses. However, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, subdivision (a), and 2031.210, subdivision (a), which both relate to a motion to compel rather than a motion to compel further. Additionally, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a), requires a motion to compel further responses to be accompanied by a separate statement. Plaintiff includes a separate statement for her motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories but failed to attach a separate statement for her motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents.

            Special Interrogatories

            Special Interrogatory No. 13: Identify each sum received by YOU from EUROBIZ for wages, tips or other compensation during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production

            Special Interrogatory No. 14: Identify the date of each payment received by YOU from EUROBIZ for wages, tips or other compensation during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 15: Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence each sum received by YOU from EUROBIZ for wages, tips or other compensation during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 16: Identify each sum paid by EUROBIZ in respect of YOUR personal indebtedness during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production

            Special Interrogatory No. 17: Identify the date of each sum paid by EUROBIZ in respect of YOUR personal indebtedness during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 18: Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence each sum paid by EUROBIZ in respect of YOUR personal indebtedness during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 21: Identify each sum borrowed by YOU from any PERSON (other than EUROBIZ) during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 22: Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence each sum borrowed by YOU from any PERSON (other than EUROBIZ) during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Special Interrogatory No. 25: Identify each sum received by YOU from TERRAVIVA for wages, tips or other compensation during the period of January 1, 2016 through the date of production.

            Defendant objected to the various discovery requests by claiming they were overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and violated his privacy. Defendant’s objections are overruled. However, as applied to special interrogatories, numbers 21 and 22, Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad because they seek all money Defendant borrowed, regardless of any relevance or connection to the present case.

            Further, Defendant has not established the discovery sought is protected. The California Constitution provides Californians with a right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, section 1.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“Williams”), citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) Other than objecting that certain requests violated his privacy right, Defendant does not establish an invasion of his privacy through the sought discovery.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted as to special interrogatories numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 25.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied as to special interrogatories numbers 21 and 22.

            Sanctions

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions totaling $5,400 and $5,850 for the two motions. However, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is denied. Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), provides: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Other than submitting a declaration requesting that the Court postpone Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant has not opposed the present motions.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to special interrogatories numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 25.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to special interrogatories numbers 21 and 22.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant shall provide code compliant, verified responses without objections to the above-mentioned special interrogatories within 20 days of notice of this order.

Dated:   January 3, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org