Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV32792, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 25, 2024

Case Name: Thris Van Taylor, et al. v. Little, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV06520

Matter: Motion to Compel Further Response

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Thris Van Taylor, A Law Corporation, and Thris Van Taylor

Responding Party: Defendant Katie Little

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

This is a suit relating to unpaid attorneys’ fees and an outstanding loan.  On January 23, 2023, Plaintiffs Thris Van Taylor, A Law Corporation, and Thris Van Taylor filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of third party contract, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) negligence, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (6) fraud, (7) intentional misrepresentation, and (8) conversion.

On October 16, 2024, the Court granted judgment on the pleadings with respect to the second through eighth causes of action against Defendant Katie Little.  Thus, only a breach of contract claim remains.

Plaintiffs now seek to compel a further response to their special interrogatory no. 28 from Defendant Little.  This interrogatory states, “Please state all the name(s), address(es), bank(s), financial institution(s), account numbers, where any part of the $203,146.77, you received as legal fees, from escrow number 20502MR, have been deposited therein.”

Little objected based on Civ. Code § 3295(c), which precludes discovery as to financial condition as it relates to punitive damages.

This objection lacks merit because (1) punitive damages are no longer at issue and (2) the interrogatory does not so much seek information revealing financial condition, but rather the location of the funds at issue.

On the other hand, it is not apparent how the subject interrogatory is relevant or could lead to admissible evidence.  Plaintiffs’ claims relating to a charging lien for the second through eighth causes of action have already been dismissed.  All that remains is a contract claim, and the location of the funds appears irrelevant to this claim.

Thus, the Motion is denied.  The Court declines to award sanctions.  

Moving party to give notice.