Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2020-00016583-CU-CD-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Construction Defect Discovery Hearing 37-2020-00016583-CU-CD-CTL O'TOOLE VS OCEANVIEW COTTAGES LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Oceanview Cottages LLC, Pacifica Construction CA Inc., Pacifica Stratford Three LLC and Stratford DelMar Inc.'s motion for protective order is DENIED.

Although Plaintiffs raise several procedural issues, the court exercises its discretion in favor of reaching the merits of this discovery dispute.

CCP § 2030.090, applicable to interrogatories, provides: (a) When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. . . .

CCP § 2031.090, applicable to inspection demands, provides: (a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.

Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245 explains, a party objecting to particular discovery requests, e.g., as unduly burdensome or oppressive, may seek a protective order. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2025, subd. (i) [protective order before, during, or after deposition]; id., § 2030, subd. (e) [protective order when interrogatories have been propounded]; id. § 2031, subd. (f) [protective order when inspection of documents, tangible things, or places has been demanded]; id., § 2033, subd. (e) [protective order when requests for admission have been made].) In such case, the burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002441 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  O'TOOLE VS OCEANVIEW COTTAGES LLC [IMAGED]  37-2020-00016583-CU-CD-CTL order is sought. (Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819 [61 Cal.Rptr. 682].) Fairmont, 22 Cal.4th at 255. See also, Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145 ['[a] party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper. (Evid. Code, § 1061, subd. (b)(3).)']. Goodman further explains, '[t]he concept of good cause ... calls for a factual exposition of a reasonable ground for the sought order.' (Waters v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 885, 893 [27 Cal.Rptr. 153, 377 P.2d 265]; Carlson v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d 431, 440.) (18) The declaration filed in support of the motion sets forth no facts whatsoever in support of the motion. . . .

Although the trial court obviously had some discretion in determining what constitutes annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, the granting of an order imposing expenses upon the plaintiffs in the absence of any facts tending to prove annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression was an abuse of its discretion.

Goodman, 253 Cal.App.2d at 819–820.

The only evidence Defendants submit is the Declaration of Samuel Yu, Defendants' counsel in this case.

Attorney Yu's declaration attaches Plaintiffs' discovery requests and Defendants' responses, summarizes the parties' meet and confer efforts, and sets forth the attorneys' fees incurred by Defendants in opposing this motion. Similar to the attorney's declaration in Goodman, attorney Yu's declaration fails to provide the requisite evidentiary basis for issuance of a protective order. Attorney Yu's sole statement summarizing the substance of the discovery requests [which attorney Yu states 'request highly sensitive financial information such as federal and state tax returns, bank statements, credit card statements, financial statements, transactions in excess of $500, and ownership records of any and all assets from the date of inception to the present'] [¶ 2] is insufficient. There is no evidence that such requests will result in 'unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense' or that such requests seek information protected by any third-party's right to privacy. In reply Defendants argue that Defendant Pacifica Construction, Inc. is dissolved and has been since 2012. Defendants also argue that seeking the same information from each of the Defendant entities is an attempt 'to cause unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.' However, Defendants fail to provide any evidence to support such statements.

Absent such evidence the court finds Defendants fail to meet their burden on this motion.

Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is DENIED.

The court encourages the parties to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference with this court to attempt to resolve future discovery disputes without the necessity of filing a formal motion.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002441