Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00735, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00735    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-14-22

Case # 21CHCV00735

Trial Date: 3-6-23

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Cheryl Gundry

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Sylvia Schenardi, et al. (Notice of Intent to File Late Opposition filed on September 12, 2022)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motions to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

In 2012, Plaintiff Chery Gundry “formed” Gentle Touch Hospice, Inc. Plaintiff owned 25% of all shares, with Defendants Nenita Dimacali, Sylvia Chenardi and Jose Joe Magpantay owning 30%, 25% and 20%, respectively. In November 2020, the shareholders agreed to sell the entity to a third party hospice care provider for $280,000 with distribution of all net proceeds in proportion to shareholders. In winding up the business, Plaintiff alleges discovery of numerous unexplained expenses, thereby prompting inquiry. According to Plaintiff, said documentation was not provided. Plaintiff additionally alleges the activity of defendants improperly compromised the value of Plaintiff’s shares.

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud, Conversion, Breach of Oral Contract (fourth and fifth causes of action), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Accounting, Failure to Pay Wages and Waiting Time Penalties, and Imposition of Constructive Trust. On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Gentle Touch Hospice, Inc. with prejudice.

RECOMMENDED RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Cheryl Gundry moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) against the individual defendants.[1] Responses were served on March 10, 2022. [Declaration of Gabriel Padilla, Ex. E.] The motion was filed 90 days from the date of the responses—twice the 45 day limit for filing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff presents a stipulation regarding an extension to file the motion to June 8, 2022. [Declaration of Blake Wells, Ex. C.] The court therefore considers the motion.

The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Plaintiffs moves to compel further responses, due to the provision of meritless objections on numbers 1-3, 55, 58, 63-64, and 89.[2] Defendants also promised to produce certain documents, but no production occurred on numbers 4-6, 9-12, 14-17, 28-33, 40-54, 56-57, 59-62, 65-76, 80-89, 90-101.

To the extent Defendants promised production, the court grants the motion to compel responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320. The unopposed motion is also granted as to the objected items. The court finds the general objections without merit and the privilege objections too broad and indistinguishing between privileged and unprivileged material.  (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection.])  Defendant is ordered to serve complete, verified responses, without further objection, within ten days, in compliance with the statutory requirements, which may include a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.240, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (a).) The Court also orders sanctions in the amount of $250 against Defendants’ attorney of record, payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h).)

March 6, 2023 trial date to stand.

Plaintiff to give notice.