Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV28303, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV28303 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: 54
Superior
Court of California County of
Los Angeles |
|||
Paul Van Kleef, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.: |
19STCV28303 |
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling |
|
Clean Concept, LLC, et al., |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: May 18, 2023
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
(2) Motions to Compel Discovery
Responses;
Motion to Withdraw Responses to
Requests for Admission
T/R: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF TO
NOTICE.
If the
parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party)
before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.
The Court
considers the moving papers, oppositions, and replies.
BACKGROUND
On
September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Paul Van Kleef filed
the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Clean Concept, LLC,
the Estate of Max Azria,
Yasmine Hanane, Robert McFarlane,
and Lubov Azria, asserting
twenty causes of action concerning the parties’ business dealings.
ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents Improperly
Designated as Privileged
“The party
claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts
necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of
an attorney-client relationship.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)
Plaintiff moves to compel production
of documents that Defendant Lubov Azria has refused to produce on the ground
they are protected by the attorney-client privilege between Clean Concept and
counsel, and between third parties and counsel. The parties disagree on the
other side’s authority and ownership interests in Clean Concept. Plaintiff
asserts Defendant is not a voting member. Defendant argues Clean Concept is no
longer an existing entity and therefore Plaintiff cannot waive the privilege as
a manager. Both parties maintain they “control” Clean Concept as the majority
member.
The central
question in this motion is whether Defendant may assert the attorney-client
privilege against Plaintiff. There is no dispute that both Defendant and
Plaintiff have some membership and/or ownership interest in Clean Concept,
regardless of who is designated as the majority owner and regardless of whether
Defendant is a voting member. Defendant does not present authority showing she
may withhold documents from another current member or manager under the
attorney-client privilege, even if those documents are “adverse” to the member
or manager. Nor has Defendant presented authority showing that as a majority
member she is the sole successor or assignee of Clean Concept.
Additionally, Defendant has not
established that she is holder of the attorney-client privilege of third-party
entities designated as “Non-CC.”
Defendant may withhold only privileged
documents with respect to which she is the sole holder of privilege as an
individual. Any other documents must be produced.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order
and Enforce Subpoenas
Plaintiff
moves to enforce the Court’s June 22, 2021 order requiring Defendant provide
responses to RPDs without objection with a privilege log, and to enforce
subpoenas for bank records. Plaintiff asserts Defendant has improperly withheld
documents, claiming they are protected by financial privacy. The Court already has
ordered Defendant to produce the subject documents without objection; Defendant
waived any objections by failing to respond. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
embezzled money from Clean Concept. Plaintiff’s need for discovery of Defendant
and Defendant’s affiliates’ financials outweighs the right to financial
privacy.
Plaintiff’s
motion is GRANTED.
C. Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Responses to RFAs
A
party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for
admission once leave of court is granted after notice to all parties. (CCP § 2033.300(a).) A court may permit the
withdrawal or amendment only if it determines the admission was the result of
mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and the party who obtained the
admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's
action or defense on the merits. (CCP § 2033.300(b).)
Defendant moves to amend or withdraw
responses to RFAs on the ground that Defendant’s former counsel produced the
responses without complete information and mistaken interpretations of the
requests. Defendant asserts that the RFAs, which request that Defendant address
the validity of her acquisition of interests in Clean Concept, seek legal
conclusions rather than facts. Former counsel declares that the wrote the
responses in error.
In opposition, Plaintiff asserts
Defendant has changed her responses to these RFAs at least twice before and should
not be permitted to change them again. Plaintiff represents that additional
discovery will have to be conducted if the responses are changed again.
The Court will allow Defendant to
amend the responses to RFAs. The issues presented in the RFAs are central to
this action and Plaintiff has been on notice of Defendant’s position for
months. Counsel has provided a declaration showing excusable neglect.
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.