Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00277, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00277    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiffs, For Love & Thread Apparel Corp. and Rong Lu filed this action against Defendants, Zanpei Xu, Lie Wan, and Wisetex Apparel, LLC for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of duty of loyalty, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and declaratory relief arising out of the parties’ joint formation of the entity plaintiff. 

Defendants answered the complaint and also filed a cross-complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation.  The cross-complaint arises out of the same business relationship that forms the basis of the complaint. 

2.     2/14/23 Motion to Reopen Discovery

On 2/14/23, the Court heard Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery, wherein they argued (a) Defendants have erroneously refused to produce their employees, Yidan Xu and Haykanush Gezukaryan, for deposition, despite the fact that the deposition subpoenas were issued prior to the discovery cut-off, and (b) Defendants caused Bank of America’s response to a subpoena duces tecum to be delayed until after the cut-off, and once the documents were finally produced, they revealed the need to conduct additional discovery concerning a related entity, All in Love Apparel Corp.

The Court held that Plaintiffs had failed to timely move to compel the employee depositions, and therefore denied the motion to reopen discovery to conduct those depositions.  The Court did, however, find that the business records from BOA supported reopening discovery for the limited purpose of conducting discovery into the relationship between Defendants and All in Love. 

3.     Motion for a Protective Order

Plaintiffs, after the 2/14/23 hearing, propounded deposition subpoenas on Defendants’ employees, Gezukarayan and Xu.  Defendants move for a protective order precluding those depositions, contending the Court’s 2/14/23 order was clear in prohibiting those depositions from going forward.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  They argue the depositions are necessary for the purpose of inquiring into the relationship between Defendants and All in Love, and therefore the requested protective order, which precludes the depositions in their entirety, is overbroad.  Notably, Defendants contend these employees lack any information about the relationships, but provide no evidence in this regard.  If the deponents truly lack any information, they can so testify under oath, and the depositions will be very short.  Plaintiffs may take the depositions for the limited purpose of inquiring concerning the relationship between the entities. 

Defendants seek sanctions with the moving papers.  Because the motion is denied, the request for sanctions is also denied.  Plaintiff does not seek sanctions with the opposition. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.