Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00621, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00621, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00621 Hearing Date: September 27, 2023 Dept: C

CC Wellness v. virahealth

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00621

HEARING: 9/27/23 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant’s Motions to Compel are DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff CCW Wellness, Inc. and Defendant Virahealth Medical Wholesale move for orders to compel further discovery responses.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Conversion, Negligent Interference, Violation of Business and Professional Code § 17200, and Unjust Enrichment against Defendant for the alleged unauthorized sale of its products. Plaintiff alleges that a shipment of its products went missing in May 2022. Plaintiff later discovered that Defendant was selling the missing products through its own Amazon Storefront.

Legal Standard

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its Requests for Production Nos. 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 25. Defendant stated in its responses that it does not have any responsive documents and maintains through the additional meet and confer efforts that it does not have any documents. Plaintiff argues that it does not believe that Defendant is truthfully responding, however, the Court has no evidence that Defendant is withholding documents. Thus, the Court cannot compel further responses to Requests Nos. 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 25.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests Nos. 16 and 17 which seek financial statements for the previous five years. These requests are overbroad because the claims relate to a missing shipment from May 2022. Further, Plaintiff argues that the requests are relevant to discovery of how much Defendant generated from the sale of products from the missing shipment. Thus, the requests will be limited to statements related to sales of products from the missing shipment from May 2022 to present. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Requests Nos. 16 and 17 with the above limitation.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Request No. 29 which seeks the identities of Defendant’s officers, managers, and members. Defendant objected on the grounds that the requests should have been made in an interrogatory or deposition. However, Plaintiff is entitled to choose the discovery method it wishes to use and its request only seeks documents sufficient to identify Defendant’s officers, managers, and members and not all documents. Thus, the request is not unduly burdensome. Therefore, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Request No. 29.

Defendant seeks to compel further responses to its Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14 and Form Interrogatory 8.4 which seek Plaintiff’s lost revenues and goodwill. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that its financial information is proprietary and that Plaintiff is only seeking damages for Defendant’s “ill-gotten gains” from the sale of products from the missing shipment. Plaintiff argues that it does not intend to use evidence of diminished profits at trial. Thus, Defendant’s request to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 13 and 14 and Form Interrogatory No. 8.4 are denied, however, Defendant may file a motion in limine regarding this issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of this Order. Defendant’s Motions to Compel are DENIED.