Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2022-01290254, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Propounded by Plaintiffs on Defendant David Goldman is granted in part.  Goldman must produce all nonprivileged responsive documents to plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set One within 14 days of this ruling, as well as a privilege log if defendants assert privilege.  However, defendants need not produce documents relating to Chris Han’s work for Elevate Retail Group after he was terminated by plaintiffs/LBG.  The court denies the motion as to those documents.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set One, seeks documents that relate to Goldman’s alleged participation in real estate projects and transactions apart from his work with the LBG entities, and his alleged use of LBG resources for those real estate projects and transactions, including the employment of then-employee of LBG entities Chris Han, which serve as the factual basis for plaintiffs’ claims against Goldman.  Plaintiffs also seek a hard drive from an LBG computer that was used by Goldman, and information regarding his financial records.

The court concludes that aside from claims of privilege, Goldman’s objections to the discovery requests are without merit.  While Goldman disputes the merits of plaintiffs’ claims against him, “California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse.”  Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551.  In general, the requested documents are relevant to the allegations in the operative complaint or are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Goldman has not carried his burden to show that production of the requested hard drive would be overly burdensome, and plaintiffs have demonstrated that this discovery is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Goldman may provide a privilege log and withhold any privileged materials.

As to the documents concerning Goldman’s financial condition, Goldman failed to assert an objection pursuant to Civ. Code §3295, resulting in a waiver, and in any event plaintiffs have demonstrated the relevance of those documents apart from any claim for punitive damages, so any such objection is without merit.  Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 86, 91.

The only documents that plaintiffs have not shown are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are documents relating to Chris Han’s work for Elevate Retail Group after he was terminated by plaintiffs/LBG.  The court therefore denies the motion as to those documents.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.