Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 19STCV38574, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV38574    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 55

TRAM v. ZHANG                                                                            19STCV38574

Hearing Date:  4/11/23,  Dept. 55

#8:   MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP: Defendant MANUEL CARRILLO.

RP:  Defendant/ Cross-Complainant HONG JIANG.

 

Summary

 

On 12/12/19, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging that defendants, as owners of 6676 23 Kimdale Rd. San Gabriel, CA, entered into a written construction contract,  failed to pay a balance due in the amount of $27,290.00.

The causes of action are:

1. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC'S LIEN;

2. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT;

3. COMMON COUNTS;

4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT;

5. STATUTORY PROMPT PAYMENT PENALTIES.

 

On 6/30/20, defendants filed a Cross-Complaint.

On 9/21/22, defendants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs and others, alleging that plaintiffs did substandard remodeling work on defendants’ residence.

Those Causes of Action are:

1.         BREACH OF CONTRACT;

2.         BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR  DEALING;

3.         NEGLIGENCE;

4.         FRAUD;

5.         DISGORGEMENT PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §7031(b);

6.         RECOVERY OF CONTRACTOR'S BOND.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests a protective order as to excusing answering special interrogatories and document requests, and imposing $3,375.00 sanctions against Defendant/Cross-Complainant and/or his counsel. on grounds including the following:  

 

·         The most recent set of discovery of goes beyond the bounds of necessity, is duplicative, highly burdensome and constitutes harassment.

·         This action is a simple breach of construction contract dispute where the amount in controversy is $27,290.00,and not sufficiently complex to warrant over 35 requests.

·         The improper discovery includes the following:

1. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 33 interrogatories seeking the identity of all locations Cross-Defendant ever performed any construction work over the time period of 2005 to 2021 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 33 interrogatories seeking identification (full name and address) of all construction projects for which Cross-Defendant was hired by William Tram to perform construction work of any kind over the time period of 2005 to 2021 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

3. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 33 interrogatories seeking identification (full name and address) of all construction projects for which Cross-Defendant was hired by WT Construction to perform construction work of any kind over the time period of 2005 to 2021 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

4. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 33 interrogatories seeking disclosure of payments made by William Tram as it pertains to any and all construction projects in which Cross-Defendant was hired to perform over the time period of 2005 to 2021 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

5. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 33 interrogatories seeking disclosure of payments made by WT Construction as it pertains to any and all construction projects in which Cross-Defendant was hired to perform over the time period of 2005 to 2021 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

6. Defendant/Cross-Complainant utilizes 11 interrogatories seeking identification (full name and address) of Cross-Defendant’s CPA over the time period of 2017 to 2022 and requests the identification of documents supporting each year.

The Requests for Documents are likewise repetitive and redundant requests seeking nearly identical information which facially lacks relevance. 90 of the 94 Requests for Documents seek production of the documents identified in the above special interrogatories. In addition, RFP No. 71 facially seeks protected attorney-client material in requesting communications with counsel for Cross-Defendant; information in which Cross-Complainant is clearly not entitled.

 

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates denying, and imposing $1500.00 in sanctions against moving party for reasons including the following:  

·         Movant has not provided good cause for a protective order.

·         Special interrogatories in excess of 35 are justified.

·         The case is far from a “simple case,” but instead involves complex issues including contracts, construction, and employment, all intertwined.

·         The case involves a complaint with 5 causes of action, a cross-complaint by JIANG with seven causes of action against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WILLIAM TRAM and Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complaints by the Cross-Defendants against each other.

·         Cross-Defendant CARRILLO, in a deposition, claimed to not know Cross-Defendant TRAM. (opp., ex A). That testimony is contrary to TRAM’S representations and position of having known CARRILLO prior to working on the Property. When CARRILLO was questioned regarding his previous discovery responses during his deposition, he stated that he did not recall making his answers to the previous sets of interrogatories propounded upon him, nor did he remember signing his verifications. (Ex B).

·         The special interrogatories propounded in set four are aimed at establishing what if any, and the extent, of the working relationship between TRAM and Cross-Defendant.

·         The Court denied JIANG’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on TRAM’s allegedly good faith and reasonable reliance on Cross-Defendant’s representation of having proper licensing and insurance. TRAM claims to not have known Cross-Defendant’s contractor’s license was expired at the start of the project for failure to obtain workers compensation insurance, and TRAM did not check, but relied solely on the alleged working relationship they allegedly had.

·         The special interrogatories target, specifically, information regarding the extent of TRAM and Cross-Defendant’s working relationship, in light of conflicting testimonies.

·         The interrogatories are not really duplicative, but separated out for each year.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is denied.

Sanctions are denied, the Court find substantial justification for some positions of each side.

After Cross-Defendant CARRILLO testified in deposition about not knowing Cross-Defendant TRAM, contrary to TRAM’S proof of having relied on CARRILLO’s information prior to working on the subject property, opposing party properly seeks evidence on whether TRAM truly had a basis to think that the hired subcontractor had worker compensation insurance coverage, which was an issue supporting denial of opposing party’s prior summary judgment motion.   Hirers can rely on representations that their exempt contractors meet the conditions of their licenses.  Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 117, 134.

“If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”  CCP   § 2030.040(b).  Subject to certain exceptions, such as a declaration for additional discovery, parties shall not propound to other parties more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories.  Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1287  (see also CCP   §§ 2030.030, 2030.040, 2030.050 and 2030.090). 

Moving parties have the burden to show good cause for protective order.  Emerson Elec. Co. v Sup. Ct. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.  The decision upon whether to enter a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the court. Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 584, 588, 591.

“[W]here … the question calls for information which may or may not be privileged, the party asserting the privilege must establish its application before the interrogator is required to show more than basic discovery relevance.”  Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1548-49. 

Finally, 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.4th 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.