Judge Stephen Morgan, Case MC027634 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

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 Court did not order further responses to the discovery requests propounded to Guangdong UNIS by CEC Entertainment, but required Guangdong UNIS to provide verifications.

On October 12, 2022, an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held and the Court and counsel confer regarding the pending discovery issues.

On February 08, 2023, another IDC was held, the discovery issues were not resolved, and the Court allowed CEC to file these discovery motions no later than February 14, 2023.

On February 14, 2023, CEC filed two motions: (1) Defendant CEC Entertainment’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four (“Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs”), and (2) Defendant CEC Entertainment’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four (“Motion to Compel Further Special Interrogatories”).

On February 22, 2023, Guangdong UNIS filed its Opposition to each respective motion.

Application – 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.

CEC requests further responses to their RFPs as they find Guangdong UNIS’ responses are deficient. Specifically, CEC takes issue with Guangdong UNIS’ objections. Each objection can be broken down into the following template:

Objection. This interrogatory[1] goes beyond the jurisdictional discovery permitted by the Court and can only been seen as a means to annoy, harass, and burden Responding Party as evidenced by Propounding Party’s efforts to simply wordsmith previously propounded and responded to discovery requests – this interrogatory wholly improper. Responding party objects that this interrogatory is compound. Responding party also objects that it is vague and ambiguous as to the terms [“insert word(s) here”] making this interrogatory unintelligible and unduly burdensome. Further, this request is unduly burdensome and beyond harassing on Responding Party. Furthermore, as phrased this request is made without any limitation such that this request seeks information which may be protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges.

The words Guangdong UNIS objected to are: “your communications;” “formation;” “acquisition;” “dissolution;” s “contracts, agreements, an/or promises;” “any sales, purchases, advertisements, solicitations, and business deals;” and “relationships.” (See ibid.)

CEC presents that discovery rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery and documents or any other evidence in support of a party’s claims or defenses is discoverable, citing to Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. Further, CEC believes that the words objected to are not unintelligible as they are basic terms and that good cause exists as the documents oppose Guangdong UNIS’ Motion to Quash and aid in CEC’s defense. Finally, CEC highlights that Guangdong UNIS makes no showing as to how the RFPs are overbroad and failed to provide a privilege log pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1).

Guangdong UNIS believes that its responses are completely proper. Guangdong UNIS states that it cannot reply for the other UNIS entities. Guangdong UNIS presents the that Debbie Gonzalez is not its employee and Guangdong UNIS believes its responses to RFPs 39-43 are beyond the Court’s jurisdiction and presents that CEC changed the company names to “YOU” or “YOUR.”

CEC’s Reply argues: (1) CEC understood the Court’s prior ruling and sought only discovery that is within Guangdong UNIS’ knowledge and possession; (2) CEC is not asking for any answer on behalf of other entities; (3) the documents requested go to the issue of jurisdiction, with support for RFP No. 43; and (4) CEC is entitled to complete, verified, and code compliant responses to its discovery. CEC then reiterates that sanctions are warranted as Guangdong UNIS’ arguments that CEC’s s “Notice for Motion does not contain a request for sanctions or identify from whom the sanctions are sought” is false.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §¿2031.310(a).)¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).)¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §¿2031.310(b)(1).) In¿Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court¿(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there¿is¿“a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v.¿Sup. Ct¿(2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Code of Civ.¿Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden, or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to actually respond. (See¿West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County¿(1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary. (See¿Obregon v. Superior Court¿(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿

Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)¿

The responses contain only objections. The objections are without merit. First, a party has the right to conduct discovery with regard to the issue of jurisdiction to develop the facts necessary to sustain this burden. (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703 [internal citations omitted; questioned on other grounds]. See also 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].) As to the Court’s jurisdiction, a Court may compel a party to answer discovery requests. (See Id. [generally].) Second, the words claimed to make the requests “unintelligible” are common words. Further, CEC provides a specific definition for “relationship” within the propounded RFPs. (See Exh. L ¶ 15.) Further, these RFPs do not appear compound. Third, as to Guangdong UNIS’ claims that the RFPs are unduly burdensome and beyond harassing, “ ‘[oppression] must not be equated with burden [all discovery imposes some burden on the opposition] . . . . to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing . . . that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.’ ” (Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313 [internal citations omitted].) Guangdong UNIS provides only a conclusory statement rather than a showing that the requests are unduly burdensome. The RFPs are also not harassing as they seek information to piece together how Guangdong UNIS’ products reached California and to establish jurisdiction. Finally, as to Guangdong UNIS’ attorney work product and attorney-client privilege objections, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240 provides:

(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

Each RFP is directed at obtaining information as to various UNIS entity individuals[2] that provide sales to California (RFP No. 38; formation of Guangdong UNIS (RFP No. 39); acquisition of Guangdong UNIS (RFP No. 40); dissolution of Guangdong UNIS (RFP No. 41), any contracts, agreements, and/or promises between Guangdong UNIS and any of the UNIS entities (RFP No. 42); and distribution of products in California (RFP No. 43). As written, the propounded RFPs focus on Guangdong UNIS. For example:

All DOCUMENTS that relate, refer to, or are in regards to YOUR COMMUNICATIONS with US Sales Manager Debbie Gonzalez for UNIS TECHNOLOGY (CANADA) LTD. in the last

While Guangdong UNIS presents that Debbie Gonzalez is not their employee, it does not address whether any communications have been made to her. It is clear, based on the fact that it was discovered that Debbie Gonzalez is the US Sales Manager, that CEC is seeking information as to how Guangdong UNIS’ products reached the U.S.’, and more specifically California’s, markets. Should Guangdong UNIS have no documents, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. provides: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) Guangdong UNIS need only respond to the RFPs as to its own actions, not Debbie Gonzalez’s.

This applies to the other RFPs as well. The RFPs request information of Guangdong UNIS only – documents regarding its formation, acquisition, dissolution, and contracts.

It appears that CEC’s discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence regarding the jurisdictional issues surrounding Guangdong UNIS.

CEC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories has the same basis as the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs. CEC takes issue with Guangdong UNIS’ objections.

Guangdong UNIS’ objections both in its initial response and supplemental responses are in the same format as those of the responses to the RFPs.

Though interrogatories are a different statute from RFPs, the basis is similar/ Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, a court may order a party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the court finds that any of the following apply:¿¿(1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; and (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.¿(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)¿Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿¿”Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible and, if the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (Id. at (b)-(c).) “If only a part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc § 2030.240(a).) If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. (Id. at (b).)

The Court has addressed Guangdong UNIS’ objections, ante, and applies its analysis to this Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories.

CEC’s Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories is relatively similar to that of the Motion to Compel RFPs. That is, CEC presents the same arguments which have been addressed, ante.

The Court next addresses the supplemental responses which include a response other than objections.

The special interrogatories propounded by CEC can be broken down into three sections:

(1) Special Interrogatories No. 43-49 request information as to Guangdong UNIS’ relationship with other UNIS entities and other corporations it may have worked with;

(2) Special Interrogatories No. 50-53 request the identification of a person most knowledgeable as to Guangdong UNIS’ relationships to each respective UNIS entity and Guangdong UNIS’ sales; and

(3) Special Interrogatories 54-57 request details as to each step Guangdong UNIS took, including people contacted, to answer certain interrogatories, exhibits, and the deposition of Debbie Gonzalez.

For Special Interrogatories 43-49, Guangdong UNIS uses phrases such as “predecessor legal entity,” “arm’s length business interactions,” “indirect affiliation,” “direct/indirect legal relationship.” These responses are not straightforward and can be considered evasive. Essentially, Guangdong UNIS provides a response that seeks to act as an answer without providing enough information for CEC to discern any relationship between Guangdong UNIS and the other UNIS Entities.

Regarding Special Interrogatories Nos. 50-53, Guangdong UNIS believes (1) that CEC is asking for a person most knowledgeable as to each UNIS entity, and (2) that interrogatories are not the correct way to identify a person most knowledge and presents that a person most knowledgeable is only obtained through a deposition notice. First the RFPs are not asking about a person most knowledgeable for each UNIS entity, only those of Guangdong UNIS that have the most knowledge as to Guangdong UNIS’ relationship with each respective entity. As to the second argument, Guangdong UNIS does not provide any evidence that such a question cannot be asked via interrogatories. Guangdong UNIS cites only to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.230, which reads:

If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.

Though it appears Guangdong UNIS is requesting that CEC notice various depositions, Guangdong UNIS has been actively advocating against the only deposition noticed by CEC since at least November 2022. Such notices will likely not produce the evidence needed in time to address the Motion to Quash. Further, CEC is not asking for a deposition at this time. Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court¿(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.) Special Interrogatories Nos. 50-53 are not vague and ambiguous or harassing and oppressive, and the information sought is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court believes this is the best way for CEC to obtain such information prior to the Motion to Quash.

Finally, as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 54-57, Guangdong UNIS argues attorney-client privileges and work-product and an inability to identify “the manufacturer and selling entity” of a separate and independent entity. First, Special Interrogatories Nos. 54-57 are asking Guangdong UNIS what steps it took and what entities, parties, organizations, or individuals it spoke to. Guangdong UNIS has the ability to answer this. It appears Guangdong UNIS is taking CEC’s wording and twisting it to fit their argument. The mention of a “manufacturer and selling entity” occurs only within CEC’s separate statement: “Special Interrogatories No. 54 – 57 ask UNIS to describe each step it took to identify the manufacturer and selling entity, as well as the steps it took to produce the invoice (Exhibit H) that reflects the sale of the Subject Ride. . .” (See CEC’s Separate Statement and Guangdong UNIS’ Separate Statement.) The interrogatories are not asking Guangdong UNIS who the “manufacturer and selling entity” of a UNIS entity, but rather to whom Guangdong UNIS spoke to identify the manufacturer and selling entity in order to produce the invoice it provided CEC. To the extent that any information was withheld on the basis of privilege, Defendant must provide further responses that provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiffs and the Court to evaluate the merits of that claim, including a privilege log. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.240(b).)

Based on the above analysis, the Motion to Compel Further Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

CEC requests sanctions in the amount of $2,512.50 [11.9 hours @ $225.00/hr + $60.00 filing fee] for the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and $2,085.00 [10 hours @ $115.00/hr + $60.00 filing fee] for the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs. (See Decl. Sean T. Cook to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories ¶ 32; Decl. Sean T. Cook to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs ¶ 31.)

Guangdong UNIS argues that verifications are not required to discovery responses that are only objections. The Court notes that Guangdong UNIS’ supplemental responses to the special interrogatories are not only objections. However, this is not at issue.[3] The Court notes for the further responses, “[i]f that party is a public or private corporation, or a partnership, association, or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party. If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that party is an attorney acting in that capacity for the party, that party waives any lawyer-client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) during any subsequent discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in the response.”(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250.)

Guangdong UNIS further argues that sanctions are not warranted as the motions are frivolous and without merit.

“Except as provided in subdivision (j) [failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system], the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).)

The Court notes that counsel for CEC has presented two different rates for his billing. No explanation is provided for this.

Defendant CEC Entertainment’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four is GRANTED.

Defendant CEC Entertainment’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four is GRANTED.

The Court orders that Guangdong UNIS Technology, Co., LTD provide its further responses within thirty (30) days of this Court Order.

[1] Though these are for RFPs, Guangdong UNIS has called them interrogatories in their responses. (See Pl.’s Separate Statement and Exh. H at Exh. M.)

[2] Throughout the development of this case, it has come to light that there are multiple different entities with the UNIS name – UNIS Technology (Canada) LTD, UNIS USA, UNIS Technology (HK), Ltd. The Court broadly refers to the entities as “UNIS entities.”

[3] “On November 7, 2022, Guangdong UNIS served its responses which, as to each and every Request listed above, were deficient in that Guangdong UNIS raised the same cut-and-paste,boilerplate objections without justification or explanation, and/or failed to provide any sort ofsubstantive response. (See Exhibit M UNIS’ Responses, Cook Decl. ¶ 19.) Guangdong UNIS failed to provide verification to these Responses as well. (Cook Decl. ¶ 19.) Interestingly, Guangdong UNIS did provide supplemental responses to CEC’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four, . . .” (Mtn. to Compel Further Responses to RFPs 7:5-13. See also Mtn. to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 7:7-28.)