Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Malone v. Corrales, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Management Conference

The CMC is continued to 12/1/22 at 2 pm.

Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Gina Malone’s motion to strike answer is denied.  Assuming the motion was timely filed and properly noticed (but see Opp. at pp. 2 & 4-5), plaintiff has not shown how the challenged defenses are irrelevant or immaterial.  Whether they have merit remains to be seen.

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted as to Interrogatories #2-9 but denied as to #1 & 10.

Defendant Christopher John Corrales shall provide complete, code-compliant, verified further responses to plaintiff’s special interrogatories (set one) #2-9 without objection within 30 days.

Defendant shall pay $2,750 in discovery sanctions to plaintiff.

Interrogatory #1:  Identifying every time defendant was sued is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation.  If plaintiff is interested in defendants’ finances when he “was a debtor under Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction for many months in the early days of the partnership enterprise” (Pl. 7/5/22 Sep. Stmt. at p. 6), she may ask a narrower interrogatory. 

Interrogatories #2-8.  The parties’ contributions and capital investments in CNC are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, a dissolution action involving CNC.  (Compl. ¶ 3.)  Defendant has not substantiated any of his objections.  (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [burden].).  

Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in discovering information about CNC’s funding so she can intelligently prosecute this dissolution action outweighs defendant’s legitimate privacy interest in his financial information.  (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

Interrogatory 9:  While plaintiff has less need for this information, the information is also less sensitive.  It does not seek account numbers or balances or transactions, just the names of institutions.  Thus, the Williams analysis favors disclosure.

Interrogatory 10:  Identifying defendant’s dissolution by county and case number is irrelevant to the subject matter of this action.  If plaintiff believes defendant’s ex-spouse may be a witness, she may ask a narrower interrogatory.

Plaintiff shall give notice.