Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00010911-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00010911-CU-BC-CTL WINEP 67 LIMITED VS REES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Winep 67 Limited's motion to compel further responses to requests for production is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant Alan Rees to requests for production ('RFP') nos. 3-7, 10, and 12-19.

As to RFP nos. 3-7, 10, 12, and 17-19, the court agrees the requests seek relevant and discoverable documents, and Defendant's responses are not code compliant. In particular, Defendant's amended response that he has conducted a search and 'currently has no such documents' does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210. Defendant has failed to state he is unable to comply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(2).) Even assuming his response that he does not have responsive documents is an implicit statement of his inability to comply, and that the 'search' conducted was diligent, Defendant has failed to affirm that he also made a reasonable inquiry, and has failed to specify 'whether the inability to comply is because 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.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) The court rejects Defendant's relevancy and overbreadth objections to RFP nos. 18 and 19.

The court also rejects Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's requests must be reasonably particularized under the Calcor Space Facility case; not only was that a case involving document requests to a non-party, but the degree of overbreadth and 'fishing' in that case cannot reasonably be compared to the requests in this case. Finally, Defendant's amended responses to RFP nos. 3, 4, 6, and 10 that 'the only non-privilege [sic] documents responsive to this Request are the Sublease and the Guaranty' suggests that responsive documents exist that are being withheld based on privilege. If no such documents exist, the responses must be amended to remove the reference to 'non-privilege,' and if responsive documents are being withheld based on privilege, Defendant must produce a privilege log.

As to RFP Nos. 13-16, the court disagrees the requests seek relevant documents or information, and they infringe on Defendant's right to financial privacy without substantial justification. Plaintiff has not established that it requires evidence related to Defendant's financial condition in order to prove its contract claims, nor has it established that Defendant has somehow put his financial condition at issue.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to RFP nos. 3-7, 10, 12, and 17-19, and denied as to RFP nos. 13-16. Defendant is ordered to provide verified code-compliant further responses to RFP nos. 3-7, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009525  2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WINEP 67 LIMITED VS REES [IMAGED]  37-2021-00010911-CU-BC-CTL 10, 12, and 17-19 no later than November 17, 2023.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009525  2