Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21STCV13870, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13870    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     December 15, 2022                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         K REPUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, a California Corporation doing business as K REPUBLIC KARAOKE, v. SOUTH ATLANTIC INVESTMENT LLC, a California limited liability company; 111 NORTH ATLANTIC LLC, a California limited liability company; WEI “JASON” CHEN, an individual and sole managing member of SOUTH ATLANTIC INVESTMENT LLC, CUONG “ROBERT” LUU, an individual; GLOBAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,  

CASE NO.:                 21STCV13870

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:              Defendants South Atlantic Investments LLC, Wei “Jason” Chen, and Cuong “Robert” Luu (“Moving Party”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed November 4, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Moving Parties move to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to its request for the production of documents set two.

BACKGROUND

             This complaint arises out of Plaintiff K Republic Entertainment Group’s (“Plaintiff”) allegations that the landlord and property manager to its leased property failed to properly maintain and repair the premises when multiple leaks occurred. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 16, 2022, alleging ten causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) gross negligence, (3) res ipsa loquitor negligence, (4) negligence per se, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of contract, (7) breach of contract, (8) intentional misrepresentation, (9) negligent misrepresentation, and (10 ) unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Moving Parties’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Moving Parties’ requests for the production of documents set two numbers 29, 30, 31,32, 33, and 37. If Plaintiff asserts that some of the documents sought are privileged, it is ordered to submit a privilege log.

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

            Moving Parties argue that they are seeking discovery of documents relating to Plaintiff’s lost business income. Moving Parties provide that they served their requests for the production of documents set two on Plaintiff on July 21, 2022. (Clark Decl. ¶ 3.) Moving Parties provide that Plaintiff provided discovery responses on August 22, 2022, but argue that the responses were deficient. (Id. ¶ 4.)

            “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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2031.310., subd. (c).)

            Here, Moving Parties move to compel further responses over 45 days after Plaintiff provided its discovery responses. However, the parties agreed via email to extend the deadline to file this motion to compel until November 4, 2022. (Clark Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit E.)

            RFP No. 29: “To the extent not already produced, any and all tax records for the year 2017 through the present.”

            RFP No. 30: “Any and all bank statements pertaining to YOUR business, for the years 2019 through present.”

            RFP No. 31: “Any and all general ledgers pertaining to YOUR business, for the years 2019 through present.”

            RFP No. 32: “Any and all payroll reports for the period of November 2020 through the current pay period.”

            RFP NO. 33: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS supporting any continuing expenses during any period of business interruption from January 2017 through the present, including, but not limited to the time period during which the State of California enforced business closures through the COVID-19 pandemic.”

            RFP No. 37: “Any and all DOCUMENTS relating to any plumbing work and/or repairs conducted at YOUR business for the period of January 2017 through the present.”

            Moving Parties argue that the documents are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for lost business income. Moving Parties also argue that Plaintiff placed their finances at issue in the present case and that the documents are necessary to calculate the value of Plaintiff’s claims. In response to the discovery requests, Plaintiff generally objected that the requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought private information. Other than broadly claiming that the documents sought are protected, Plaintiff has not established that the discovery requests demand private or privileged documents.

            Moving Parties’ motion to compel further responses is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Moving Parties’ requests for the production of documents set two numbers 29, 30, 31,32, 33, and 37. If Plaintiff asserts that some of the documents sought are privileged, it is ordered to submit a privilege log.

CONCLUSION

            Moving Parties’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Moving Parties’ requests for the production of documents set two numbers 29, 30, 31,32, 33, and 37. If Plaintiff asserts that some of the documents sought are privileged, it is ordered to submit a privilege log.

            Moving Party to give notice

Dated:   December 15, 2022                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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