Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00651, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV00651 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 24SMCV00651
MOTION: Motion
to Lift Discovery Stay (CCP 425.16(g).)
HEARING DATE: 11/12/2024
Legal
Standard
Discovery is automatically stayed
upon the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. (CCP, § 425.16(g); The Garment
Workers Center v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1161.) “The
court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified
discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.” (Id.) “If the
plaintiff makes a timely and proper showing in response to the motion to
strike, that a defendant or witness possesses evidence needed by plaintiff to
establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must be given the reasonable
opportunity to obtain that evidence through discovery before the motion to
strike is adjudicated.” (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing
Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 868.) “The trial court, therefore, must
liberally exercise its discretion by authorizing reasonable and specified
discovery timely petitioned for by a plaintiff… when evidence to establish a
prima facie case is reasonably shown to be held, or known, by defendant or its
agents and employees. (Id. see Matson v. Dvorak (1995) 40
Cal.App.4th 539, 548 [on prong 2 of the anti-SLAP analysis, plaintiff must
demonstrate, through admissible evidence, “a sufficient prima facie showing of
facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the
plaintiff is credited”]; see also Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 247 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to permit limited discovery when the appellant did not explain what
additional facts he expected to uncover and why discovery is necessary to carry
his burden].) The fact that the evidence necessary to establish the plaintiff’s
prima facie case is in the hands of the defendant or third party is only one
factor. (The Garment Workers Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1162.)
“The trial court should consider whether the information the plaintiff seeks to
obtain through formal discovery proceedings is readily available from other
sources or can be obtained through informal discovery.” (Id.)
Analysis
Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Jinwan
Shen and Da Bai Niu move to reopen discovery pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16(g). Plaintiffs request discovery to oppose Defendant
Ziyi Yang’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint. As set forth below,
Plaintiffs fail to show good cause for lifting the discovery stay.
Plaintiffs argue that the sole
“protected activity” asserted in Defendant Yang’s motion is her filing activity
(or lack thereof) with the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiffs reason that
they need additional discovery on “Defendant Yang alleged protected activities,”
including whether the acts were ministerial or not. (Mot. at 1.) Plaintiffs,
however, have no burden to produce evidence on Yang’s protected activities.
Instead, if Defendant meets his burden as to prong one, Plaintiffs must show a
prima facie cause of action for fraudulent transfer, constructive trust, and an
accounting. Evidence concerning Yang’s protected activity, including whether
the acts were ministerial or not, would have no bearing on the second prong of
the Court’s anti-SLAPP analysis.
Plaintiffs also seek escrow
documents related to the transfer of the subject properties. Such documents
directly evidence the transfers, and thus would be relevant to prove the fraudulent
transfer claims. That said, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this
discovery is “necessary” to oppose the motion. Plaintiffs do not explain (1) whether
they already have access to such documents through alternative means, (2) what they
expect to discover from the escrow documents, and/or (3) how the documents would
specifically support the fraudulent transfer claim. Further, these requests are
not narrowly tailored to the issues presented in Yang’s anti-SLAPP. Instead,
the document request is broad and generic, seeking no particular facts or
documents as to Yang.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial
notice is GRANTED.