Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20GDCV00072, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00072    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 5, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendants Cal Garden, LLC and Ming Gu

Responding Party: Plaintiff Queens Land Builder, Inc.

T/R:    DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

THE REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS 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, opposition, reply, and supplemental declarations.

BACKGROUND

            This is a construction defect case arising out of the construction of condominium complex and its subterranean garage. The owners of adjoining property to the complex, Plaintiff claims the construction caused substantial subsidence and settlement issues on its property. This litigation involves several contractors and sub-contractors, complaints and cross-complaints.

ANALYSIS

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)

Defendants/Cross-Complainants move to compel further responses to FIs, SIs, RPDs and RFAs from Plaintiff. On June 30, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this motion after Plaintiff said it had served supplemental responses. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and identify in a joint declaration which responses (if any) remain at issue. The parties instead filed separate declarations stating which responses each believes are still disputed.

Despite the Court’s order, it appears the parties still have not engaged in a meaningful meet and confer. Because there is no clarity as to what remains at issue, and because the number of requests the parties still seem to be arguing about is voluminous, the Court will address the principal disagreements: whether the settlement in a related matter relieves Plaintiff of responding to certain requests, and whether Defendants are entitled to the financial information of Plaintiff’s officers and employees.

            Plaintiff argues that many of the disputed requests seek irrelevant information because of a settlement agreement in a related case. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have waived construction defect and subsidence claims. In opposition, Defendants contend that Defendants released tort causes of action but did not release any contract causes of action. Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive. Defendants are entitled to relevant and discoverable information. The settlement agreement does not bar discovery and Defendants’ contractual causes of action appear to be exempted from the release.

            Plaintiff objects to the requests for financial records and bank account information of officers, employees, agents, and representatives of Plaintiff on the grounds that the requests invade the right to privacy. The Court agrees. In the separate statement, Defendants argue that this information is relevant to Defendants’ alter ego claims. This is insufficient to justify disclosure of individuals’ financial information, particularly of Plaintiff’s employees, agents, or representatives.

            With these rulings from the Court, the parties are ordered to meet and confer for at least three hours to resolve the individual requests. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

            Defendants’ motion to compel further is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.