Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01186369, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

(1-3) Motions to Compel Production

Tentative Ruling:

(1) Plaintiff Adam Kidan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, as to Defendant Madison Resource Funding, LLC (“MADISON”) is DENIED, in its entirety, as follows.

The Court finds the document requests to MADISON are unrelated to the issue of whether or not there is a basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants CHIPMAN and TIERNEY. MADISON did not file a motion to quash and does not contend there is no basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over it.

The Court previously granted CHIPMAN and TIERNEY’s request for protective order and stated that any matters concerning “the general corporate affairs, finances and any other proprietary business information, and internal communications of MADISON, CHARTWELL, and COAST TO COAST” are not to be inquired into. (See 8-9-22 M.O.)

The Court also considered and rejected Plaintiff’s “reverse agency” theory when it ruled on COAST’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. (See 11-10-21 M.O., ROA 222); “To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impute Madison's contacts in California onto CTC on a ‘reverse agency’ theory — by which a California parent company's forum contacts are imputed to an out-of-state subsidiary —there does not appear to be any California case where this has been done. (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 224 [‘such ‘reverse agency’ theory appears at odds with the underlying principle of imputation through agency, which relies on a nonresident entity exerting power over the day-to-day operations of the resident corporation..., akin to a nonresident puppeteer pulling the strings of a California puppet.’]).”])

Moving Party is to give notice.

(2)(3) Plaintiff Adam Kidan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of documents, Set No. One, as to Defendant Richard J. Chipman (“CHIPMAN”) and Plaintiff Adam Kidan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of documents, Set No. One, as to Defendant Leonard Tierney (“TIERNEY”) is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows.

As to Request Nos. 1-4 and 16, the Motion is GRANTED, in part. The Court finds the Responses are inadequate as they fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210(a), 2031.220, 2031.240(a) and (b), and 2031.230.  Responding Party must state whether he intends to comply and must state that “it will produce all documents “in [its] possession, custody, or control”; or if objecting to only a part of a request, he must identify the materials being withheld and confirm that it will comply with the remainder of the request; or if unable to comply state that he has conducted a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry” and the basis for its inability to comply.

The Court, however, does find the objections stated are valid as the requests are overly broad and seek documents unrelated to the issue of whether there is a basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over CHIPMAN and TIERNEY.

As to the issue of the Verifications, Responding Parties state in the Opposition that they will serve same. As such, this issue is MOOT. However, to the extent the Verifications have not bee provided by the time of the hearing on the Motions, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to the Verifications and orders Responding Parties provide same within the next 7-calendar days.

Moving Party is to give notice.