Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 19STCP05045, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCP05045    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 55

RUIZ v. TORRES                                                    19STCP05045

Hearing Date:  10/25/22,  Dept. 55

#9:   

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendants PROVIDENCIA LLC et al.

Summary

On 11/22/19, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for “ALTER EGO AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE,” alleging that, on June 12, 2012, Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a wet floor of a restaurant and grocery store called Super Tiendas La Tapachulteca, at 6569 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, and has obtained a judgment in a prior action, which he has been unable to enforce, due to a fraudulent conveyance.

On 3/11/21, Plaintiff filed motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, adding two defendants.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling further responses to special interrogatories, and to document requests, and imposing sanctions ($2,171.10, $2, 173.77), on bases including the following:

·         Each of the requests relates specifically to information directly concerning Defendants, their business, and how it has been operated to avoid and evade payment for potential claims.

·         Defendant's responses to all forms of discovery were evasive, with very little information, and repeated meritless and untimely objections.

·         Defendants hindered Plaintiff’s search for basic information that will help unravel the web of shell companies that the family has used to transfer assets between themselves.

·         An attempt to meet and confer  produced no supplemental responses.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, and awards of sanctions ($780.00, and $1,500.00), on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiff's motion is untimely, and so Plaintiff has waived the right to bring this. Plaintiff states that Defendants responded on March 16, 2022. The time elapsed is 54-days, beyond the 45-day limit.

·         Plaintiff failed to substantiate the relevance of business records, which demand is based solely on Plaintiff's unjustified assertion of alter-ego liability.  Plaintiff failed to proffer any facts to establish that Defendants had an ownership interest in Super Tiendas La Tapachulteca, Inc., let alone that Defendants exercised such dominion and control over the entity in disregard of corporate formalities such that the entity could be found to be the alter ego of Defendants.

·         There are unpublished opinions that support Defendants’ position that personal identifying information (Driver’s License and Social Security Number) is not discoverable

Tentative Ruling

Both motions are denied.

The opposing requests for monetary sanctions are granted, as prayed.

            Timeliness:

The motions were served beyond the 45-day limit.

The responses were served 3/16/22.  The motions were filed 6/7/22. 

Motions to compel further responses as to interrogatories and document requests must be served 45 days from the date of the original or supplemental responses.  CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).   The 45-day limitation to move to compel further responses as to interrogatories and document requests is jurisdictional, and courts are without authority to rule on untimely motions to compel except just to deny them.  Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410;  Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 736, 746;  Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 902.  The failure to file a timely motion to compel further responses to unsatisfactory discovery responses constitutes a waiver of an ability to obtain further responses.  Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.

            Objections

The opposing objections lack merit.  Moving party is not required to prove relevance to obtain discovery, including as to alter-ego discovery.

“In pursuing such discovery, the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's individual claim is immaterial….”  Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.  “[T]he statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.”  Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.   Parties requesting discovery information are not first required to prove that it would be relevant and admissible.  Alch v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1429-31.  “[T]o show the merits of one's case has never been a threshold requirement for discovery….”  Williams v. Sup.Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558.

Financial discovery has been found relevant as to alter ego allegations.  E.g., Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1965) 234 Cal. App. 2d 767, 778-79;  Rawnsley v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 86, 91 (party alleging alter ego theories was entitled to access defendants' financial records due to lack of alternatives).

“With a few minor exceptions all records of the Department of Motor Vehicles relating to registration of vehicles, information contained on applications for drivers' licenses, abstracts of convictions and accident reports are public records and open for inspection. (Veh. Code, § 1808.) There can be little expectation of privacy when the records are made public by statute.”  People v. Herrera (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 386, 389.

Social Security numbers constitute private information, and are associated with concerns of identity theft.  Alch v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1412, 1436;  U.D. Registry, Inc. v. State of Cal. (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 405, 429;  In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1064. 

            Sanctions

The Court finds lack of substantial justification for the motions, due to untimeliness.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.