Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: MC027634, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: MC027634    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Valarie Nolte (“Valarie”¹) and Richard Nolte (“Richard” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) alleges on January 06, 2016. that Defendant negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, entrusted, managed, and maintained their premises so as to allow a dangerous condition to exist, specifically an unsafe ride with steps that negligently did not have a handrail for patrons to use, causing a Plaintiff, not specified, to fall and sustain physical injuries. 

On January 04, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) General Negligence, (2) Premises Liability, and (3) Loss of Consortium. 

On April 05, 2018, Defendant CEC Entertainment, Inc. dba Chuck E Cheese (“CEC”) filed its Answer. 

On April 27, 2018, CEC filed its Cross-Complaint against several cross-defendants, including Cross-Defendant Guangdong UNIS Technology, Co., LTD (“Guangdong UNIS”).

On August 18, 2022, CEC filed a Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three; and a Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents, Sets Two and Three.

The hearing was set for September 08, 2022. No Opposition was filed.

On September 08, 2022, a hearing on the matter was held. The Court requested supplemental briefing regarding how each item of discovery relates to a question of jurisdiction. The following timeline was created:

• Supplemental briefing by CEC due by September 16, 2022;

• Opposing brief by Guangdong UNIS due by September 21, 2022; and

• Reply to Opposition by CEC due by September 23, 2022.

On September 13, 2022, Guangdong UNIS filed its Opposition to the Motions to Compel. The Court does not take this into consideration as (1) the hearing on this matter was already held; and (2) the supplemental briefs, not the Motions to Compel, are now at issue.

On September 16, 2022, CEC filed its supplemental briefs.

On September 20, 2022, Guangdong UNIS filed its Oppositions.

On September 22, 2022, CEC filed its Replies.

-----

Discussion

Application – The issue presented before this Court is whether the requested items in the Motions to Compel are within the realm of jurisdictional discovery.

When a defendant appears solely to contest jurisdiction, discovery undertaken in connection with that challenge will not constitute a general appearance. (See Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 620, 628 [taking of deposition, propounding interrogatories, and examining certain of plaintiff's documents for purposes of supporting a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction do not constitute general appearance].) Guangdong UNIS has been specially appearing to contest jurisdiction in this action since April 01, 2022.

1. Special Interrogatories

Nos. 3-8, 22-24: Withdrawn. The Court need not delve into these Special Interrogatories.

Nos. 14 and 28: seeking relationship between Guangdong UNIS and UNIS HK, UNIS Technology Co. Ltd., UNIS USA, UNIS Canada, Shiyu Group, Zhong Shan UNIS, UNIS Canada (repeated), UNIS Tech. Co. Ltd. (repeated), Shiyu Group (repeated), UNIS USA (repeated), Universal Space Amusement (HK) Ltd.

Nos. 15-18, 29-35: seeking Guangdong UNIS to identify the PMK at UNIS Canada, UNIS Technology (HK) Ltd., UNIS Technology Co. Ltd., UNIS USA re: relationship between the entities and PMK at Zhong Shan UNIS Technology Co. LTD., Universal Space Amusement (HK) Ltd., UNIS Canada, UNIS Technology (HK) Ltd., UNIS USA, and Shiyu Group.

Nos. 36-42: seeking Guangdong UNIS to identify PMKs at Zhong Shan UNIS, Universal Space Amusement (HK) Ltd., Shiyu Group, UNIS Canada, UNIS Technology (HK) Ltd., and UNIS Tech. Co. Ltd. re: sales, purchases advertisements, solicitations, business deals, within CA.

CEC argues that Guangdong UNIS can provide the requested information as the companies involved are related to Guangdong UNIS, Guangdong UNIS identified the subject ride as being sold to Universal Space Amusement (HK) Ltd. as a sales entity for Zhong Shang UNIS, and that Guangdong UNIS was able to produce employees of UNIS Canada for deposition. CEC presents that this information is needed for establishing jurisdiction as it would lead to testimony demonstrating Guangdong UNIS’ role in the manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or transportation of UNIS products in California.

Guangdong UNIS presents that (1) it has already responded; (2) CEC fails to provide authority that goes beyond Guangdong UNIS’ responses; and (3) Guangdong UNIS is its own separate and individual entity and cannot describe the relationship that other entities have with each other, or designate PMKs for other entities.

CEC rebuts Guangdong UNIS’ arguments by stating that the opposing papers are evasive as Guangdong UNIS is feigning ignorance to entities that it is able to contact, that Guangdong UNIS’ website advertises and provides channels to purchase products from all UNIS entities, that Guangdong UNIS provided discovery from other UNIS entities. CEC provides that a minimum Guangdong UNIS must provide a verified response that states Guangdong UNIS does not have that knowledge and why and/or identify natural persons, entities, or organization, including contact information for same, who Guangdong UNIS reasonably believes or is known to have such information

1. Requests for Production

Nos. 2-22: seek documents which reflect, relate concern or are regarding the formation, acquisition, and/or dissolution of the businesses ZHONG SHAN UNIS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; UNIVERSAL SPACE AMUSEMENT (H.K.) LTD.; SHIYU GROUP; UNIS TECHNOLOGY (CANADA) LTD.; UNIS TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) LTD.; UNIS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; and UNIS USA, respectively.

Nos. 23-29: seek any documents that show any sales, purchases, advertisements, solicitations, and business deals within the State of California completed by ZHONG SHAN UNIS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD; UNIVERSAL SPACE AMUSEMENT (H.K.) LTD.; SHIYU GROUP; UNIS TECHNOLOGY (CANADA) LTD.; UNIS TECHNOLOGY (H.K.) LTD.; UNIS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; and UNIS USA.

Nos. 30-37: Seeking docs related to Debbie Gonzalez and things that she has testified to (e.g. client list, CEMA, documents reflecting sales, Steven Tan, etc.)

CEC argues that the documents in RFP Nos. 2-22 determine whether or not any of the UNIS entities inherited any liabilities from any previously dissolved UNIS entities. Regarding Debbie Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), the documents related to her relationships and clients would show language in Gonzalez’s contract regarding her relationship with other UNIS entities and/or Mr. Tan, specifically with regard to her role in entering UNIS products in the stream of commerce in California and the United States; (2) the client list would include people from California to show that UNIS Guangdong was targeting the California market; (3) other documents related to Gonzalez’s testimony would show who was producing the UNIS products that entered into the US, who was promoting products in California, uncover conversations between UNIS higher ups, and establish that Guangdong UNIS manufactured, marketed, advertised, solicited, and/or transported products to California and targeted the California market.

Guangdong UNIS responds by highlighting that the documents requested are from third-party, individual, and separate entities and that these documents are not regarding jurisdiction as to Guangdong UNIS.

CEC states that Guangdong UNIS hides behind the assertion that the UNIS entities are separate, Guangdong UNIS can reach out to the other UNIS entities, or at the very minimum, provide the names and contact information of those natural persons, entities, or organizations reasonably believed or known to have the discovery sought.  CEC once again highlights Guangdong UNIS’ website, argues that the documents pertain to jurisdiction, and request, at the minimum, a verified response.

-----

A plaintiff is generally entitled to discovery on jurisdictional issues before the court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894 [after reversing trial court's order granting motion to dismiss, court of appeal instructed trial court to consider plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery].) In conducting discovery relating to whether the court has personal jurisdiction, it is customary for a defendant appearing specially to state on the notice of motion to dismiss and all discovery requests and responses the notation "special appearance." A defendant seeking to specially appear will carefully limit discovery requests and other actions in the case to the jurisdictional question. Otherwise, a general appearance may occur by taking part in the action or proceeding. (See Creed v Schultz (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 733, 739 [holding that party makes general appearance by noticing deposition and seeking production of documents]; but see Jensen v Jensen (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 682, 686 [verifying discovery responses and assisting with litigation solely in representative capacity as guardian ad litem insufficient to establish purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction].)

The Court takes judicial notice of its records pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) (Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States). Exhibits H and M to the Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories show Guangdong UNIS’ responses with “verifications to follow;” Exhibit H and M to the Motion to Compel RFPs shows Guangdong UNIS’ responses with “verifications to follow;” the declaration of Sean T. Cook in both Motions to Compel state that Guangdong UNIS failed to provide verifications (see Decl. Cook in both respective motions at ¶ 19.)

Here, the questions asked of Guangdong UNIS are related to other UNIS entities and Gonzalez, who works for UNIS Technology Co. LTD. The Court does not believe it is appropriate to compel Guangdong UNIS to provide information and documents that (1) it has stated it does not have in its possession after a diligent search, (2) that have to do with separate non-party entities, and (3) that have to do with individuals who do not work for Guangdong UNIS. However, a verification to the discovery responses is required as “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988), 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636 [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].)

-----

Conclusion

Defendant CEC Entertainment’s Motion to Compel Cross-Defendant to Provide Further Responses and Requests for Production of Documents, Sets Two and Three; and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

The Court does not order further responses to the discovery requests propounded to Guangdong UNIS Technology, Co., LTD by CEC Entertainment.