Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC00154, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00154, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00154 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: 26

Parts Authority, LLC v. Solaris Trading Corp.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Parts Authority, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set Two, and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED. DEFENDANT SOLARIS TRADING CORPORATION DBA GRAND AMERICAN TIRE IS TO SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH CODE-COMPLIANT AMENDED RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ALSO, DEFENDANT SOLARIS TRADING CORPORATION DBA GRAND AMERICAN TIRE AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $2,400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Parts Authority, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Solaris Trading Corporation dba Grand American Tire (“Defendant Solaris”) and Stefan Bostanian (“Defendant Bostanian”) on January 7, 2022. Trial in this action was originally set for July 7, 2023. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set Two, and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on June 12, 2023. Two days later, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing date or continue the trial to ensure the motion would be heard 15 days prior to trial. The Court granted the ex parte application by continuing the trial date to August 7, 2023. (Minute Order, 06/15/23.) Defendant Solaris filed an opposition to the instant Motion on June 22, 2023 and Plaintiff replied on June 28, 2023.

The Motion initially came for hearing on July 6, 2023 and was continued to July 20, 2023. (Minute Order, 07/06/23.)

Legal Standard

Upon receipt of responses to discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses are evasive, incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion for an order compelling further responses shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2)) and notice of the motion shall be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, or the party requesting the order waives any right to compel further responses (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).).

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission must include a separate statement providing all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and response at issue. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and full response. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

A motion requesting an order compelling further responses to a demand for production of documents must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Discussion

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff served Request for Production, Set Two on Defendant Solaris, with responses due on May 22, 2023. Plaintiff granted Defendant Solaris’ request for an extension until May 30, 2023. Thereafter, Defendant Solaris requested an additional extension, which was granted until June 1, 2023. On June 1, 2023, Defendant Solaris provided responses, which Plaintiff claims were deficient. On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter requesting defense counsel to meet and confer on June 6, 2023, or Plaintiff would file the instant motion to compel and seek sanctions. On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with defense counsel regarding the deficiencies in Defendant Solari’s responses. Defendant Solaris agreed to provide supplemental responses. On June 8, 2023, Defendant Solaris served amended responses. On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel, stating that the amended responses remained deficient, given that they were not code-compliant nor verified. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Solaris failed to respond to the June 9, 2023 email.

First, upon reconsideration of its earlier tentative ruling, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were sufficient. The meet and confer process began on June 1, 2023, upon service of Defendant Solaris’ initial responses. Due to Plaintiff’s efforts, Defendant Solaris agreed to serve amended responses, thereby acknowledging that the initial responses were deficient despite two prior extensions of the time to respond. Upon receipt of the amended responses on June 8, 2023, Plaintiff immediately met and conferred on June 9, 2023 and requested amended responses by the end of the day. The short deadline was understandable in light of the two prior extensions of the time to respond, and service of the initial responses that Defendant Solaris conceded were deficient. Also, Plaintiff had very little time to obtain amended responses due to the imminent July 7, 2023 trial date and corresponding discovery cutoff. Despite Plaintiff’s efforts to work within this short time frame, it was forced to bring an ex parte application to address these deadlines.

Regarding the merits, the requests at issue are as follows:

RPD No. 3: Copies of any and all purchase orders placed with Fast Undercar, Santa Clarita branch, between 9-1-19 through 7-31-20.

RPD No. 4: Copies of any and all purchase orders placed with Fast Undercar, Newbury Park branch, between 9-1-19 through 7-31-20.

RPD No. 5: Copies of any and all customer repair orders between 9-1-19 through 7-31-20.

RPD No. 6: Copies of Solaris Trading Corporation corporate minutes from 1-1-13 through date of production.

RPD No. 7: Copies of any and all Solaris Trading Corporation bank statements, including but not limited to checking, savings, operating, and credit card accounts, between 9-1-19 through 7-31-20.

RPD No. 8: Copies of all issued share certificates for shares in Solaris Trading Corporation.

RPD No. 9: Copies of the share registry for the shares produced in response to RFP 8 above.

RPD No. 10: Copies of any and all notices given to the Department of Corporations and/or Department of Business Oversight confirming that the shares produced in response to RFP 8 above were issued.

The Court finds that RPDs nos. 3-5 are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims as they may be used to show Defendants’ breach of oral contract as well as be used to show the balance owed by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Bostanian testified in his deposition that a purchase order for parts would have been issued in every case and that customer repair orders would reflect whether or not customer repair orders showed parts orders to Plaintiff’s predecessor had been fulfilled. The Court finds that RPDs nos. 3-5 are relevant in addressing these issues.

As to RPD nos. 6, 8-10, the Court finds this request to be relevant to Plaintiff’s alter ego allegation. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Bostanian testified in his deposition that he was the sole shareholder and officer of Solaris Trading Corporation and sole person who prepared corporate Minutes. Since Plaintiff made alter ego allegations in the Complaint, whether or not Mr. Bostonian prepared corporate minutes goes to the issue of corporate formalities and the issue of alter ego.

As to RPD no. 7, the Court finds this request to be relevant. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Bostanian in his deposition testified that someone on his staff had prepared a spread sheet showing payments to Plaintiff’s predecessor but the spread sheet is multiple hearsay and not the best evidence of payments made to Plaintiff’s predecessor and is not authenticated, thus the bank statements, including but not limited to checking, savings, operating, and credit card accounts, between September 1, 2019 through July 31, 20.

Defendants’ amended responses are largely the same for RFP nos. 3-5, and are as follows:

Responding Party asserts his General Objections in full.

Responding Party further objects on the grounds that the documents and information sought is in the possession, custody, or control of or Propounding Party itself, from whom such discovery may be obtained directly.

Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and designed to harass and annoy in that it is not limited in reasonable time or scope.

Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or protection, including trade secrets, privacy, and confidential financial or other information

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party does not possess any later acquired information or documents bearing on answers previously made to any of Propounding Party’s prior requests, other than discovery which has been produced and/or otherwise disclosed in the course of discovery in this matter thus far, and accordingly, equally available to Propounding Party.

Defendants’ amended responses are largely the same for RFP nos. 6-10, and are as follows:

Responding Party asserts his General Objections in full.

Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and designed to harass and annoy in that it is not limited in reasonable time or scope.

Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is irrelevant and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments that the responses are not entirely code-compliant. Specifically, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, Defendant Solaris fails to specify its inability to comply on the grounds that the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The Court also finds that Defendant Solaris’ objections that the requested documents are in Plaintiff’s custody and control of Plaintiff to be largely unsupported and without merit. Thus, the Court finds there is good cause justifying the demand for Plaintiff’s RFP, Set Two.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses demand for production of documents, unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to monetary sanctions, which are GRANTED and imposed against Defendant Solaris and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,400.0.00 for 8 hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00, plus $60.00 for the filing fee, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.