Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL CHAPMAN VS FALL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations, 08/18/2023

Tentative Rulings on Motions to Compel Discovery

Lead case: Chapman v. Fall, Case No. 2022-43403 Consolidated case: Fall v. Chapman, Case No. 2022-52199 Oct. 20, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a dispute over control of two corporations, Alliance Electrical Systems and IAQ Distribution, which operate in the lighting and electrical industry and the municipal air purification business. Fall and Chapman founded the two businesses together in 2018 and 2020, respectively. The two had a falling out in 2022, giving rise to two lawsuits. Following a motion (ROA 89), the cases were consolidated on April 15, 2023. ROA 92.

The defendants in Fall's derivative case sought an order imposing a $50,000.00 bond on Fall pursuant to Corporations Code section 800. ROA 88. Opposition and reply briefing were thereafter filed. ROA 100-107. The court reviewed the papers; following a hearing on May 12, 2023, the court denied the motion. ROA 110.

Discovery disputes have now arisen. Some were the subject of a detailed ruling on Sept. 15, 2023.

ROA 166. Presently, Fall seeks to compel further responses to a document demand from cross-defendant IAQ, as well as further responses to a document demand from cross-defendant AES.

ROA 138-152. Cross-defendants filed opposition. ROA 174-183. Fall filed reply. ROA 194-199. The court has read the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with these motions.

The case is set for trial in June of 2024. ROA 91-94.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037297  48 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAPMAN VS FALL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL 'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. The court's determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion. Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431. Among the factors the court should consider are the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, and the prospects for success. Id. A trial judge's perceptions on such matters, inherently factual in nature at least in part, must not be lightly disturbed. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.

C. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

D. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).

However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. As an initial matter, the court finds that Fall made a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution. Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 431; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438. The parties exchanged detailed correspondence reflecting their respective positions on the challenged discovery and participated in at least one telephone call. (See e.g., Cochran Decl., ¶ 7; Exs.

3, 4, 7, 8.) B. Turning to the merits, the motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents are denied as moot. Verified supplemental responses have been provided. (Bobak Decl., ¶ 21.) Any challenge to the sufficiency of the supplemental responses must be resolved future motion.

C. Fall's request for monetary sanctions is denied. 'The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.' CRC 3.1348(a). In this case, however, the court is once again persuaded that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.310(h). It appears that both sides are responsible – albeit to varying degrees – for the latest round of discovery motions. Counsel are reminded that '[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention.' Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037297  48