Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00654, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00654 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: March 27, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: KZ INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, a California limited liability company, v. ARMEN E. BABAYAN, an individual
d/b/a TV WHOLESALE OUTLET; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV00654
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Armen E. Babayan,
individually and dba TV Wholesale Outlet (“Defendant”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
KZ International, LLC
SERVICE: Filed December 18, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed March 14, 2024
REPLY: Filed March 20, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant moves for an order
compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to his requests for the
production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff KZ
International, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Armen E. Babayan sold
Plaintiff unlawfully obtained products. Plaintiff filed a complaint on March
23, 2023, alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (2) negligent interference with
prospective economic relations, and (3) unjust enrichment.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of the date of
this order.
Defendant’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
Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further
responses to his discovery requests. Defendant served his form interrogatories,
special interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents on April
28, 2023. (Cunningham Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant provides Plaintiff served deficient responses on
June 22, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) The parties met and conferred and agreed to a
protective order. (Id. ¶¶ 5-9.) The parties agreed to extend the
deadline for the present motions until December 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 10,
Exhibit G at p. 2.)
In
opposition, Plaintiff provides that Defendant’s motion violates its due process
because it violates California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (d),
which provides that “[a] motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or
admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by
set and number.” However Plaintiff argues that
Defendant’s motions are deficient because Defendant’s notices
fail to contain the required information. However, the applicable rule does not
require Defendant to place the specific information solely in the notice of
motion. Defendant includes the applicable information in its motions and
separate statements.
Plaintiff
also argues that the motions should be denied because it served supplemental
responses. However, Plaintiff does not support that statement with a
declaration or provide which discovery requests or type of requests it served
supplemental responses to. Thus, the court now turns to the specific discovery
requests at issue.
RFP No.
1: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and BABAYAN.
RFP No.
2: All DOCUMENTS reflecting payments from YOU to BABAYAN with
respect to the purchase of products.
RFP No.
3: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 3 of the
COMPLAINT that “…KZ International paid Defendant $3,811,71.80 for the
Products…..”
RFP No.
4: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 3 of
the COMPLAINT that “…KZ International paid Defendant $3,811,71.80 for the
Products…..”
RFP No.
5: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 3 of
the COMPLAINT that “…KZ International … already sold for a substantial profit
through its well-established retail and distribution channels …”
RFP No.
7: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 3 of the
COMPLAINT that “…KZ International … already sold for a substantial profit
through its well-established retail and distribution channels …”
RFP No.
12: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 4 of
the COMPLAINT that “…Defendant …. knew KZ International would resell those same
Products to various retailers and distributors”
RFP No.
13: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 5 of the
COMPLAINT that “…the Products Defendant sold to KZ International were illicitly
obtained.”
RFP No.
14: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 5 of
the COMPLAINT that “…the Products Defendant sold to KZ International were
illicitly obtained.”
RFP No.
15: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the seizure of any Products in
December 2022 and then again in January 2023, as alleged in paragraph 5 of the
COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
16: All COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the seizure of any Products in
December 2022 and then again in January 2023, as alleged in paragraph 5 of the
COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
17: All police reports and search warrants RELATING TO the seizure
of any Products in December 2022 and then again in January 2023, as alleged in
paragraph 5 of the COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
18: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the seizure of Products from YOUR
client’s warehouse, as referenced in paragraph 5 of the COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
19: All COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the seizure of Products from YOUR
client’s warehouse.
RFP No.
20: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of the
COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that (a) the
Products he sold to KZ International were illegally obtained (or that they were
“stolen cargo”) …”
RFP No.
21: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of
the COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that (a) the
Products he sold to KZ International were illegally obtained (or that they were
“stolen cargo”) …”
RFP No.
22: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of the
COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … he did not
have legal title to the Products at the time he sold them to KZ International,
or when he represented to KZ International that they were available for sale…”
RFP No.
23: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of
the COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … he did
not have legal title to the Products at the time he sold them to KZ
International, or when he represented to KZ International that they were
available for sale…”
RFP No.
24: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of the
COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … he did not
have the full authority to sell the Products to KZ International…”
RFP No.
25: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of
the COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … he did
not have the full authority to sell the Products to KZ International…”
RFP No.
26: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of the
COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … KZ International
would suffer damages by attempting to resell stolen goods.”
RFP No.
27: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 6 of
the COMPLAINT that “Defendant either knew, or should have known, that … KZ
International would suffer damages by attempting to resell stolen goods.”
RFP No.
28: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of the
COMPLAINT that YOU “…incurred over $376,000 in shipping and storage fees,
removal fees, and reserved inventory charges…”
RFP No.
29: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of
the COMPLAINT that YOU “…incurred over $376,000 in shipping and storage fees,
removal fees, and reserved inventory charges…
RFP No.
30: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of the
COMPLAINT that YOU have “…since become the subject of numerous claims by
third-parties whose storefronts have been closed or frozen by Amazon because of
the “stolen cargo…”
RFP No.
31: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of
the COMPLAINT that YOU have “…since become the subject of numerous claims by
third-parties whose storefronts have been closed or frozen by Amazon because of
the “stolen cargo…”
RFP No.
32: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of the
COMPLAINT that “Between June and December 2022, KZ International purchased the
Products from Defendant, for a total price of $3,811,71.80.”
RFP No.
33: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 7 of
the COMPLAINT that “Between June and December 2022, KZ International purchased
the Products from Defendant, for a total price of $3,811,71.80.”
RFP No.
34: Plaintiff incorporates its prior objections. Subject to and
without waiving them, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff will produce all
responsive documents to this request.
RFP No.
35: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contentions in paragraph 17 of the
COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
36: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contentions in paragraph 17
of the COMPLAINT.
RFP No.
37: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 18 of the
COMPLAINT that “Defendant represented to KZ International that he had legal
title to the Products, as well as full authority to sell them to KZ
International.”
RFP No.
38: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 18 of
the COMPLAINT that “Defendant represented to KZ International that he had legal
title to the Products, as well as full authority to sell them to KZ
International.”
RFP No.
39: All DOCUMENTS reflecting COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Amazin
Express concerning the raiding of its warehouse.
RFP No.
40: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR First Cause of Action for Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose.
RFP No. 41: All
COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR First Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose.
RFP No.
42: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR Second Cause of Action for
Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations.
RFP No.
43: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR Second Cause of Action for
Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations.
RFP No.
44: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR Third Cause of Action for Unjust
Enrichment.
RFP No.
45: All COMMUNICATIONS supporting YOUR Third Cause of Action for
Unjust Enrichment.
RFP No.
47: All DOCUMENTS reviewed by YOU in order to prepare YOUR responses
to the Form Interrogatories – General, served concurrently herewith.
Special Interrog. No. 4: IDENTIFY YOUR
certified public accountant or other professional, from January 1, 2018 to the
present, who prepared, or assisted in the preparation, of YOUR tax returns.
Special Interrog. No. 5: IDENTIFY YOUR book
keeper, from January 1, 2018 to the present, who prepared, or assisted in the
preparation, of YOUR tax returns.
Special Interrog. No. 6: IDENTIFY all
individual(s) and/or entities to whom YOU sold allegedly stolen products.
Special Interrog. No. 7: IDENTIFY any and all
individuals (excluding YOUR attorneys) with whom YOU discussed the stolen
products which are the subject of YOUR COMPLAINT.
Form Interrog. No. 7.1: Do you attribute any
loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for
each item of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and
location of the damage to the property; (c) state the amount of damage you are
claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d)
if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the
seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.
Form Interrog. No. 8.7: State the total
income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and how the amount was
calculated.
Form Interrog. No. 8.8: Will you lose income
in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so, state: (the facts upon which
you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how
long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is
calculated.
Form Interrog. No. 9.1: Are there any other
damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage
state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the
name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was
incurred.
Form Interrog. No. 12: State the name,
ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the
INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b)
who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any
statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who
YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except
for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).
Special Interrog. No. 14.1: Do YOU OR ANYONE
ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated
any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal
(proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that
was violated.
Special Interrog. No. 17.1: Is your response
to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified
admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a)
state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response;
(c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have
knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible
things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.
Defendant’s
motions to compel further responses are granted in their entirety. Plaintiff is
ordered to provide further responses, to the extent it has not already done so
in its supplemental responses. Plaintiff may submit a code-complaint privilege
log for any information or documentation it is asserting privilege claims for.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are
GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of
the date of this order.
Defendant’s
requests for sanctions are denied.
Dated: March 27, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court