Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV22928, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22928    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Case Name:                            Kwan, et al. v. Black, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV22928

Motion:                                  Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party:                         Defendant Meshia Moss, Esq.

Responding Party:                  Plaintiffs Kevin Kwan and Adam Mjolsness

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED as to the requests for admission and DENIED as to the form interrogatories.

Moving Party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            On July 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Kevin Kwan and Adam Mjolsness (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Tijeron Black, Meshia Moss, Esq., Project VII Recordings, LLC.

            On July 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Civil Conspiracy, (2) Fraud and Deceit, (3) Constructive Trust, (4) Statutory Fraudulent Transfer, and (5) Aiding and Abetting Statutory Fraudulent Transfer. Plaintiffs allege they were induced by Defendants to loan them $258,800.24 for false medical and business reasons. Defendants used the money to purchase real property and transferred the assets amongst themselves to avoid liability.

            On February 1, 2023, Defendant Meshia Moss, Esq. (“Moss” or “Defendant”) filed the instant motion for a protective order.

            On March 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

            On March 7, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Moss moves for a protective order on requests for admission, set two, and form interrogatories, set two. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,861.25.

            “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 § 2030.090(b).)  A motion for a protective order “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2017.020(a).)

            As with any motion for a protective order, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating “good cause” for granting the requested relief.  (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.)  Good cause requires a showing of specific facts demonstrating undue burden or other grounds, and justifying the relief sought. (Goodman v. Citizens Life & Casualty Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819.)

            Whether a protective order should issue, and if so on what terms and conditions, are issues in the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See Id. at 316-317.)  Only if the motion shows good cause or that justice requires the exercise of discretion, may a court exercise its power to order that a deposition shall not be taken or that it may be taken only at some other time or place or in some other manner than as proposed, or that the scope of the questions be limited or controlled in certain specified manners.  (See Beverly Hills Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 861, 866.)  Courts have considerable discretion in granting and crafting protective orders. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)

            Defendant has provided a meet and confer declaration that satisfies the requirement of CCP § 2017.020(a). (See Aloupas Decl.)

            Defendant brings this motion on the grounds that (1) the requests for admission, set two contain an additional 193 requests bringing the total amount to 322 when both sets are considered, (2) Plaintiffs conclusory “Declaration for Additional Discovery” does not meet their burden (which has shifted to them) to justify why they need to propound an additional 193 Requests for Admission, (4) there is good cause for the protective order, and (5) the concurrently served form interrogatories, set two are duplicative, cumulative, overly burdensome and oppressive.

            CCP § 2033.040(b) provides that if the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission. Thus, the burden is shifted to Plaintiffs to justify the amount of requests for admission.

            Plaintiffs contend that the number of requests for admission is warranted because they directly relate to each of Defendant’s 29 affirmative defenses. Part of the reason that there are so many is necessitated by the language of CCP § 2033.060(f) which states that “no request for admission shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive request.” This required Plaintiffs to break up certain affirmative defenses into multiple requests. Plaintiffs also argue that newly discovered evidence from Defendant’s Chase Bank records have necessitated further requests.

            In reply, Defendant argues that while most of the requests deal with each of the affirmative defenses, the way they are written is unduly burdensome and harassing. The Court agrees. A substantial amount of the requests ask essentially the same thing, i.e., admitting if Defendant has evidence to support the affirmative defense. Further, the requests parse out every word in the affirmative defense, rather than simply asking about the evidence as to the affirmative defense generally. Defendant points out instances where up to 20 requests are devoted to one affirmative defense. The Court finds this practice unduly burdensome and harassing.

            As to Request Nos. 287-322 which relate to the newly discovered evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show the necessity for the substantial amount of requests. While newly discovered evidence may necessitate some additional requests, Plaintiffs do not provide any specifics as to why there are so many.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to the requests for admission in its entirety. Plaintiffs must find a more efficient way to obtain the discovery they seek that is not so burdensome.

As to the Form Interrogatories, the Court does not find them duplicative. The interrogatories seek specific detailed information as requests and defenses. The requests for admission only ask for Defendant to admit something. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to the form interrogatories.

As the motion is granted in part and denied in part, sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

            The Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED as to the requests for admission and DENIED as to the form interrogatories.

Moving Party to give notice.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.