Judge Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case Number: 37-2023-00036244-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00036244-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024 09:00:00 AM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Fraud Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00036244-CU-FR-CTL DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE SALES AND MARKETING INTERNATIONAL CORP VS TORRES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 01/22/2024

A. Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is DENIED.

As an initial matter, the court notes that the notice of motion (ROA 70) does not specify the type of relief sought. See CRC 3.1110(a). Nor was any proposed order submitted. This made it extremely difficult for the court to determine the nature of the protective order being requested.

Turning to the merits, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060(b) authorizes a court to issue a protective order, for good cause shown, 'to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.' The 'burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.' Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. 'Good cause' requires that the moving party show 'facts tending to prove annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression' or other grounds justifying the relief sought. Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819. 'A party seeking the protective order must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the issuance of a protective order is proper.' Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.

In this case, plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they should be excused from responding to the challenged document requests. The only evidence submitted in support of the motion is the declaration of Vincent Renda. ROA 72. Mr. Renda's declaration consists of 5 paragraphs, none of which address the merits of the motion or the propriety of the requested protective order.

B. The motion by defendant Torres to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is granted as to requests 1-2. 'The corporate right to privacy is a lesser right than that held by human beings and is not considered a fundamental right.' SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756. To determine whether the document requests infringe Doctor's Signature's corporate right to privacy, the court must balance the discovery's relevance to the subject matter of the dispute against the corporate right of privacy. Id. Here, requests 1 and 2 are relevant to the allegations in Torres' cross-complaint that Life Force obtained loan funding because it was in 'dire financial straits.' In balancing the discovery's relevance against Doctor's Signature's corporate right to privacy, the court finds that the requested financial documents must be produced subject to a protective order prohibiting disclosure outside the confines of this lawsuit.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077041 11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE SALES AND MARKETING INTERNATIONAL 37-2023-00036244-CU-FR-CTL The motion is granted as to requests 3-4, 13, 15-20, and 25. Doctor's Signature committed to producing the requested documents. If Doctor's Signature lacks the ability to comply with the requests, it must amend its responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.

The motion is granted as to requests 5-7. 'For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.' Children's Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1276. Moreover, while the court agrees that the requests implicate the privacy interests of Doctor's Signature's employees (see Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426-27), these concerns can be addressed by redacting any identifying information. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38 ('[I]f intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.').

The motion is granted as to request 8. Doctor's Signature's statement of compliance – i.e., which purports to limit the applicable time period of the discovery request – is incomplete.

The motion is denied as to requests 9, 11, and 31. The court is not persuaded that the requested confidential employment documents regarding non-parties Andrew Rosengren, Kathleen Meadows, and Emily Hillman are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Requests 9 and 11 are also temporally overbroad.

The motion is granted as to request 12. Doctor's Signature's response does not comply with section 2031.230.

The motion is granted as to requests 14, 21-23, and 35. Doctor's Signature's objections are overruled.

'An important aspect of legitimate discovery from a defendant's point of view is the ascertainment, in advance of trial, of the specific components of plaintiff's case so that appropriate preparations can be made to meet them. It is impossible to discover this other than from the plaintiff.' Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 637, 650. Moreover, in balancing the discovery's relevance against Doctor's Signature's corporate right to privacy, the court finds that the requested documents must be produced subject to a protective order prohibiting disclosure outside the confines of this lawsuit. See SCA Acquisitions, 243 Cal.App.4th at 756.

The motion is denied as to requests 24, 29-30 and 32-34. The requests, as currently drafted, are overbroad in time and scope.

The motion is granted as to requests 26-28. Although Ronald Hillman has been dismissed as a defendant in this case (ROA 128), plaintiffs specifically allege that his 'employment with Life Force was terminated for cause.' (FAC at ¶ 90.) Torres is entitled to discovery regarding this allegation. However, given the privacy interests at stake (Alch, 165 Cal.App.4th at 1426-27), the requested documents must be produced subject to a protective order prohibiting disclosure outside the confines of this lawsuit. See Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 38.

C. The motion by defendant Torres to compel further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories 2-3, 5, and 15-20. Doctor's Signature's objections are overruled. '[I]f an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the nondiscoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the party's case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute.' Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1761. Moreover, Doctor's Signature has not shown how the interrogatories violate a right to privacy. See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 ('While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.').

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077041 11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE SALES AND MARKETING INTERNATIONAL 37-2023-00036244-CU-FR-CTL The motion is denied as to special interrogatories 7, 12, and 27. Sufficient responses have been provided.

The motion is denied as to special interrogatories 10 and 14. The former is vague and ambiguous as to the term 'reports.' That latter seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatory 11. Doctor's Signature's response to this interrogatory is nonresponsive. 'A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.' Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatory 22. As discussed above, plaintiffs specifically allege that Ronald Hillman's 'employment with Life Force was terminated for cause.' (FAC at ¶ 90.) The motion is granted as to special interrogatory 24. 'The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required[.]' West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417. No such evidence was submitted here. Moreover, 'it is not proper to answer by stating...'See my pleading[.]'' Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783.

D. In sum, Doctor's Signature must serve further verified responses to document requests 1-8, 12-23, 25-28, and 35 by May 3, 2024. Doctor's Signature must also serve further verified responses to special interrogatories 2-3, 5, 11, 15-20, 22, and 24 by May 3, 2024. As noted above, the discovery shall be produced only after execution of a mutually agreeable protective order prohibiting disclosure outside the confines of this lawsuit. See Hill, 7 Cal.4th at 38; see also SCA Acquisitions, 243 Cal.App.4th at 756.

E. The parties' respective requests for sanctions are denied. The court finds that imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Indeed, the foregoing is somewhat of a mixed bag.

F. Torres' request for judicial notice (ROA 179) is granted. Evid. Code § 452(c). Plaintiffs' requests for judicial notice (ROA 156, 158, 184) are denied. 'Trial court decisions are not precedents binding on other courts under the principle of stare decisis.' Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1148.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077041 11