Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00027489-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00027489-CU-NP-CTL VITA GLOBAL VS WANG [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Mengke Zhang's motion to compel Plaintiff Vita Global (d/b/a Chinese Union) to provide further responses to special interrogatories and requests for production is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

SROGs 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 42, and 48 These interrogatories ask Vita Global to identify documents supporting some of its allegations and contentions in this case.

Vita Global objected that the interrogatories were not full and complete because they quoted from/cited the allegations in the complaint and included a preface. Vita Global made no effort to argue the merits of such objection in its opposition. The objection is therefore overruled. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287–1290 [objection that interrogatory is not 'full and complete' only proper where propounding party is attempting to evade the 35-question limit].) Vita Global also objected to SROG 28 on the ground it 'seeks documents that include trade secrets, as well as confidential and proprietary information.' But the interrogatory asks Vita Global to identify-not produce-documents. Vita Global cannot refuse to identify documents on the ground the documents themselves are privileged. The objection is therefore overruled. (See Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293 ['the existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged'].) Notwithstanding the above objections, Vita Global responded to the interrogatories by generically referring to its document production and exhibits filed in support of its earlier ex parte application for a TRO and preliminary injunction. That is insufficient, and further responses are required. (See Hernandez, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 293 ['If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document']; see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784 [improper to answer interrogatory by stating 'See my deposition' or 'See my pleading'].) SROG 19, 24, and 47 These interrogatories ask Vita Global to state all facts in supporting some of its allegations and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2974113  24 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  VITA GLOBAL VS WANG [IMAGED]  37-2022-00027489-CU-NP-CTL contentions in this case.

Vita Global also objected to these interrogatories that they were not full and complete. That objection is overruled for the reasons set forth above.

However, notwithstanding that objection, Vita Global provided narrative responses to these interrogatories. The responses are sufficiently complete and straightforward. As such, no further responses are required. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220, subd. (a), 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).) RFPs 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, and 16 These requests seek documents that Vita Global identified in response to some of the above interrogatories.

Vita Global responded that it would 'produce responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control. Discovery and investigation are continuing.' Vita Global asserts that it produced responsive documents, but that it redacted them because they contain confidential business information (e.g., names of Chinese Union's members, specific names of .pdf and.doc files, specific Contact ID, CRM ID, and CRM URL addresses, and the specific names of WeChat groups). Vita Global argues that the redacted information is not relevant and is shielded by the trade secret privilege.

As to relevance, Vita Global argues that the nature of the information is no longer in issue because it 'has already established that such information is a trade secret.' It relies on the order granting its application for a TRO and preliminary injunction. However, that order 'does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights of the parties. . . . An order on a preliminary injunction is an interim order which reflects nothing more than the superior court's evaluation of the controversy on the record before it at the time of its ruling; it is not an adjudication of the ultimate merits of the dispute.' (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 356, 390, emphasis in original.) At the time of that ruling, there was no competent evidence in opposition. The order also left the issue open, noting that 'even if the member database is not a trade secret,' there was sufficient evidence for an injunction under the Unfair Competition Law. In short, whether any or all of the information constitutes a trade secret was never definitely resolved.

As to the trade secret privilege, Vita Global waived any such objection. If an RFP is objectionable, the responding party must '[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(2); see Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1141 [party waived objection based on trade secret privilege by only objecting to document requests based on attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges].) Vita Global's agreement to produce 'non-privileged documents' is not a specific objection based on a specific privilege.

Conclusion The motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

Vita Global shall provide further verified responses, without objection, to SROGs 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 42, and 48. The responses shall specifically identify/describe the documents.

Vita Global shall provide further verified responses, without objection, to RFPs 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, and 16.

The responses shall omit the 'non-privileged' qualifier.

No further responses are required for SROGs 19, 24, and 47.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2974113  24 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  VITA GLOBAL VS WANG [IMAGED]  37-2022-00027489-CU-NP-CTL The parties' respective requests for sanctions are denied. Zhang was substantially justified in bringing the motion, and Vita Global was substantially justified in opposing it.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2974113  24