Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00619, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00619    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: C

CHU v. YUE

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00619

HEARING: 04/25/24

#5

Defendants SHOU ZHENG YUE; VIGOROUS MORENO LLC; VIGOROUS W INVESTMENT CO. LTD.; VIGOROUS W INVESTMENT LLC; and VIGOROUS W RANCHO LLC’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order Governing Confidential Information is GRANTED.

The Court will issue entry of the Court’s Form Protective Order governing Confidential Information in this action, without modification. Moving Party is ORDERED to file and serve a Proposed Order in this regard within 5 court days of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Moving Party to give notice.

This action for fraud was filed by Plaintiffs ANTHONY K. CHU dba Law Offices of Anthony K. Chy, an Individual; and JIANG QI, an individual (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on February 27, 2023. On May 22, 2023, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed.

The FAC alleges that “Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain an order of this Court to avoid the transfers made by Defendants NEW DIAMOND, YUE, QING, MA, JIUCHENG, QINGYU, SHUQIN, MORENO, CO LTD, LLC, and RANCHO (collectively as ‘Defendants’) under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act….” (FAC ¶19.)

The FAC asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfer (Actual Fraud);

(2) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfer (Constructive Fraud); and

(3) Civil Conspiracy

Defendants move for entry of a protective order to protect confidential information that may be disclosed during discovery. It is undisputed that financial transactions and information is at issue in this case. Defendants indicate that they are willing to produce certain documents requested by Plaintiffs upon entry of a protective order governing confidential information. Defendants propose that the parties stipulate entry of the Court’s form protective order, without modification. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs would not agree to the entry of the Court’s form protective order unless Defendants agreed to modify it to add a paragraph that would allow Plaintiffs to use discovery produced in this action in an unrelated bankruptcy proceeding, In re Yindan Zhang, Debtor U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California Case No. 6:21-bk-16325-NH, and further adversary proceedings not involving any of these defendants.

In Opposition, Plaintiffs fail to substantively address the issues argued in the instant Motion. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that the requested discovery is relevant to this action and that Defendants are required to produce/respond to said discovery.

The Court may issue any Order to protect any parties, persons, or organizations from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense associated with responding to discovery. (CCP §§2030.090(b), 2031.060(b), 2033.080(b).) The Court may also make any order as may be appropriate to protect parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands. (CC P§1987.1.)

The relevance of the discovery and Defendants’ responses or lack thereof are not at issue at this time. Indeed, it appears that Defendants are willing to respond to relevant discovery and produce responsive documents—subject to entry of a protective order to protect confidential information. Upon entry of the Court’s form protective order, Plaintiffs would not be foreclosed from seeking permission from Defendants, or filing a Motion with the Court, to use confidential materials in unrelated actions.

The Motion is GRANTED. The Court will issue entry of the Court’s Form Protective Order governing Confidential Information in this action, without modification. Moving Party is ORDERED to file and serve a Proposed Order in this regard within 5 court days of the Court’s issuance of this Order.