Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 19GDCV01347, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19GDCV01347    Hearing Date: October 16, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiff J&J Freight Solutions, LLC is a trucking company. It was started by Jie Mei Huang. Huang’s husband Qinyi Yu formed Golden J Group, Inc., a sister company, that provides back up services to J&J in the form of assisting with port entry, trucking, repairing, warehousing, and repackaging services. Defendants Jianhua Li and Ninyan Tan are former employees. In this action, Plaintiffs allege that Li and Tan misappropriated their trade secrets to start a competing business, CTU Connection. In July 2020, a preliminary injunction was issued preventing Defendants from using Plaintiffs’ trade secrets. In October 2021, Plaintiffs added EMC Transportation, Inc. as a doe, alleging that it is a shell corporation and conduit for CTU.  

At issue is the sufficiency of compliance with requests for production No. 25 and 33 (RFP 25 and 33), propounded and served on Defendant CTU (Defendant) as Requests for Production Set Two on April 24, 2023. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

          Having read and considered all the briefing, including the supplemental briefs, the Court does not find it appropriate to issue a monetary sanction.

          II. Evidentiary Objections

Defendant CTU’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence: (4)

The following objections are overruled: none

The following objections are sustained: A(1), A(2), B, C

III.     LEGAL STANDARD

          A party responding to requests for inspection must either provide a statement of compliance, represent that it lacks the ability to comply, or object. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.)

          - If a party responds with a statement of compliance, the statement must indicate whether production will be allowed in whole or in part and that all documents in the responding party’s possession, custody or control to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.)

          - If a party responds that a particular demand cannot be complied with it must include a representation that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry have been made and that the inability to comply is because the item has never existed, has been lost, stolen, or misplaced, or has never been in or is no longer in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control; such response must also identify the name and address of any person or entity known or believed to have possession, custody, or control of the item or category of item.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.)

          - If a response includes objections, a privilege log identifying documents being withheld must be provided. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.240.)

          When a party propounding demands for inspection deems responses to the responses to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to be without merit, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses. Such motion must set forth facts showing good cause for the discovery, be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and include a separate statement. Such motion must also be made within 45 days of verified responses or supplemental responses, or on or before any specific later date the parties have agreed to in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)-(c).)

          Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310 (h) provides for the imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

IV.     ANALYSIS

          A. Meet and Confer

Counsel for Plaintiffs, Mary Sun, declares that she met and conferred with Defendant CTU before filing this motion. She declares that she emailed July 3, 2023 to address the objections CTU raised with respect to RFP No. 25 and 33. (Sun Decl., ¶ 7.) She then called again July 5, 2023 to urge Defendants to withdraw their objections. (Id. at ¶ 8.) CTU responded and declined to withdraw the objections. (Id.)

          Counsel’s declaration is sufficient for meet and confer requirements.

          On opposition, Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ meet and confer declaration fails to show they made a good faith effort to resolve each issue presented by the Motion to Compel. (Opposition, p. 8: 7-11.) Specifically, Defendant urges that the “overlapping customers” issue was not discussed at any meet and confer. (Opposition, p. 8: 7-9.) However, the emails do provide that Mary Sun noticed Defendants to the issue of OEI and Cosmic not being on the prohibited list but still within the scope of discovery. (Motion, Exh. 3, p.1.)  As such, Defendant’s argument is without merit.

Defendant also argues that the meet and confer was untimely, but it does not cite any authority to support the proposition that not attempting to meet and confer before July 3, 2023 was evidence of “fail[ure] to act in good faith to informally resolve the discovery dispute.” (Opposition, p. 8: 12-17.)

In sum, the meet and confer requirement is met.

          B. Discovery at Issue

          A copy of the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two at issue is attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s motion. At issue are RFPs 25 and 33. They seek production of the following documents:

25. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transaction(s) between YOU and O.E.I. International, Inc. from July 24, 2020 to the present, including without limitation all communications (whether by email, text, WeChat or other social media or otherwise, including attachments), invoices, delivery orders, proofs of delivery, receipts, proofs of payment, etc.

33. All DOCUMENTS relating to any transaction(s) between YOU and Cosmic Express Corp. from July 24, 2020 to the present, including without limitation all communications (whether by email, text, WeChat or other social media or otherwise, including attachments), invoices, delivery orders, proofs of delivery, receipts, proofs of payment, etc.

          C. Relevancy, Overbroad, Oppressive and Burdensome Objections

          In CTU’s Response to the Requests for Production, Set Two, it objected to RFP 25 and 33 in part on the ground that “it is irrelevant and remote to the subject matter of the pending litigation” and “it lacks reasonable particularity and is overbroad” and “it is oppressive and unduly burdensome” (Motion, Exh. 2 p. 3: 16-25, 2:13-22.) Plaintiff urges that the objections CTU raises to Requests no. 25 and 33 are boilerplate objections that must be overruled. (Motion p. 6:22-23.) Relevantly, the Court has already rejected the same boilerplate objections advanced now in an order dated August 27, 2021. (Motion, Exh. 4.) The Court held that “The opposition has failed to justify the objections asserted to these Requests and so the further responses are to be held without objection.” (Motion, Exh.4, p. 3.) Here, defendant is propounding the same objections as those referenced in the August 27, 2021 Court Order. As such, the same objections cannot be propounded without justification to preclude responding to RFP 25 and 33.

           On opposition, Defendant does not counter the argument Plaintiff raises.

          D. Scope of Discovery Objection

          In addition, CTU’s Response to the Requests for Production, Set Two objected to RFP 25 and 33 in part on the ground that the customers listed are on “not listed on the ‘protected list’ of entities covered by the PI order issued on July 24, 2020.” (Motion, Exh. 2.) In fact, the Court ordered Defendant CTU to serve responses for “documents related to any overlapping customers or drivers of defendant CTU and Golden J or J & J” (Motion, Exh. 4, p. 5.) Here, Plaintiff urges that the entities in RFP 25 and 33 are “overlapping customers” of Plaintiff and Defendant. (Motion, Exh. 7.) However, the emails and delivery order evidencing that that OEI and Cosmic are overlapping customers of Plaintiff and Defendant are not admissible because Defendant’s evidentiary objections were sustained. (Motion, Exh. 7.)  Even if the emails were admissible, they do not show OEI and Cosmic are overlapping customers of Plaintiff and Defendant, as the emails only show correspondence between Plaintiff and OEI, and the delivery order only shows a relationship between Plaintiff and Cosmic. Neither the emails nor the delivery order shows a relationship between OEI and Defendant or Cosmic and Defendant, which is required for the entities to be essentially shared customers between Plaintiff and Defendant.

          In opposition, defendant urges that the Motion to Compel as to RFPs 25 and 33 should be denied as Plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence that OEI or Cosmic are “overlapping customers” of Plaintiff and Defendant. (Opposition, p.9: 22-26.) This argument is well-taken.

          In reply, Plaintiff urges that a motion to compel only requires “’specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.’” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1); Sosa v. CashCall, Inc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 42, 47.) Plaintiff urges that the fact that Mary Sun made her declaration under oath makes the evidence admissible. (Reply, p. 4: 9-10.) Plaintiff further urges that because no counter-declaration was provided to dispute the genuineness of the documents, good cause is undisputed. (Reply, p. 4: 16-18, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Ct. In & For Merced Cnty. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 389.).) However, Greyhound provides that “since the statute does not prescribe the method of showing good cause, such may be shown in any manner consistent with the established rules of pleading and practice.” (Id.) Therefore, good cause can be disputed by evidentiary objections, as defendant did. To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that the emails are admissible, the argument is unsupported without further citation that a declaration under oath makes anything contained or referenced by the declaration admissible.

          As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to grant the motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Documents, Set Two, the motion must be denied.

          E. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), requires the imposition of sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response unless the court finds the imposition of a sanction to be unjust or that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification. 

Plaintiff asks for $1,951.25 in monetary sanctions against CTU Connection. The request is supported by the Declaration of Mary Sun, who indicates that she bills at $450/hour and that she spent 4.2 hours on this motion, totaling a request of $1,890 in attorneys fees, and who paid $61.25 for a filing fee.

           The Court finds that this motion was neither made nor opposed in bad faith. Both sides had reasonable arguments to make regarding the scope of the requests for production. Consequently, the Court finds that neither party is entitled to recover monetary sanctions from the other party.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

           Plaintiff’s motion to compel furthers is DENIED.  Defendant CTU is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT