Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2020-01145998, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Justin S. Beck’s Motion to Permit Pretrial Discovery of Financial Condition and Net Worth of Defendants Kenneth Catanzarite, Esq., Catanzarite Law Corporation, Brandon Woodward, Esq., Tim James O’Keefe, Esq., Nicole Marie Catanzarite Woodward, Esq., Richard Francis O’Connor, Jr., Amy Jeannette Cooper, Cliff Higgerson, Mohammed Zakhireh, and James Duffy in Pursuit of Punitive Damages is denied.  Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice #A is granted to the same extent that his cited prior requests were granted.  Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice #B and C are denied as not necessary, helpful or relevant.  Zucchet v. Galardi (2014) 229 Cal. App. 4th 1466, 1474 n.5.  Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections are overruled.  Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections are overruled as to #5, 10 and 26, and sustained as to #6-9, 11-25 and 27-58.

Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of any of the defendants’ financial condition pursuant to Civil Code §3295(c) because he has not established that there is a substantial probability that he will prevail on his claim pursuant to Civil Code §3294 for punitive damages.  “Substantial probability” is interpreted to mean “very likely” or “a strong likelihood”, and the court has weighed the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to the motion and cannot make a finding that it is very likely that plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.  Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 754, 758.  Plaintiff fails to provide adequate evidence that defendants’ conduct was done with malice, i.e., an intent to injure plaintiff or with conscious disregard of the harm it would cause plaintiff.  Plaintiff provides only his speculation and conclusory statements as to alleged fraud, perjury, malice and oppression, and relies on the appellate court’s opinion, which viewed plaintiff’s evidence only with respect to whether plaintiff’s claims survive an anti-SLAPP motion.  Moreover, this case is not even at issue due to the pending demurrers and motions to strike as to the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses and Production of Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories are denied.

These motions are all premised on defendants not serving any responses to plaintiff’s discovery.  However, plaintiff electronically served his discovery on Sunday, May 7, and thus service was deemed made on Monday, May 8, pursuant to CCP §1010.6(a)(4).  Defendants’ 30-day time to respond was extended by two days under CCP §1010.6(a)(3)(B) because of the electronic service.  Thus, defendants had until June 9 to respond, and did serve responses on June 8, rendering them timely.  But plaintiff filed these three discovery motions late in the day on June 8, the day before defendants’ responses were even due.  Thus, the premise for plaintiff’s motions fails, and his motions must be denied.

Defendants’ opposition request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff is granted in the amount of $1,000, payable within 30 days.  Plaintiff’s position, that defendants failed to serve timely responses to plaintiff’s discovery, lacks substantial justification, and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust, thereby making a sanctions award mandatory under the statute.  Plaintiff “raced to the courthouse” to file these motions, and failed to withdraw them after receiving defendants’ timely discovery responses.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling.