Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00092, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00092    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-14-23

Case #22CHCV00092

FURTHER DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jason Bolding

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, D/R Welch Attorneys at Law

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Jason Bolding alleges defendants David Welch and D/R Welch Attorneys at Law provided legal services in order to obtain a cannabis business license with the City of Los Angeles. Rather than submitting an application, Defendants sought to broker an investment agreement with an existing cannabis business also in the process of obtaining cannabis business licensing. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were in fact engaged representing the seller as well, without disclosing said relationship to Plaintiff, thereby creating a conflict of interest. Defendants subsequently disclosed the relationship, and Plaintiff signed the waiver of a conflict “under duress.” No licenses were ever obtained. The third parties never provided any financial or other promised support.

On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Written Contract, and Fraud – Concealment. Defendants answered the complaint on August 12, 2022.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Jason Bolding moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) from defendant, D/R Welch Attorneys at Law. The motion comes following a series of blanket objections. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The form of question objections lack merit. Defendant may not intentionally misconstrue a work for obstreperous purposes. “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 superseded by statute on unrelated ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.) Defendant lacks support for the objections.

“But ‘[f]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ (Citations.)” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.) The information sought regarding the care and treatment of Plaintiff is relevant. As addressed below, the court separates the inquiry between the time frame and the actual information.

The equally available objections lack merit. (Bunnell v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723–724.) The burdensome and oppressive objections also lack merit. Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at p. 418.)

The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes unprivileged material.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 734.) The transmission of information between third parties and counsel also maintain attorney client privilege protection, if the communication is in further interest of the client. (Evid. Code, § 952.) “Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733.)

The work product privilege applies where the sought after documents contains Defendant’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories,” the information is protected by the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030(c).) “An objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney's tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney's industry or efforts”].) (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502.) Notes, statements, and impressions of the case are protected by the work product doctrine. A list of potential witnesses is not work product. (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 495; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217–218.) The objections lack support regarding client communications or other work invoking work product.

“‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

The party asserting the privilege holds the burden of establishing its existence. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.) Nothing in the simple objection establishes a trade/proprietary secret.

“Privacy interests generally fall into one of two categories: (1) an interest in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (‘autonomy privacy’); and (2) an interest in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’).” (Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1301.) “[I]ndividuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their personal financial information.” (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 330.)

The objecting party has the burden to file evidence of the preliminary facts establishing a privilege exists. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557; HLC Properties, Limited v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 54, 59.) The responses provide no support for the privilege objections. Nothing in the objections supports any finding of corporate privacy. The individual privacy objection lacks support in that it’s not clear how individual information in a form interrogatory constitutes a privacy protected interest.

To the extent third parties are actually implicated, the parties cannot waive such rights of third parties. Any potential individuals should be given the opportunity to either consent or object, before discovery responses revealing their private information. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 374-375; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-562.)

As the second motion to compel further response submitted to the court, the court imposes sanctions in the amount of $500 joint and severally against both responding defendant and counsel, payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Continued voluminous boilerplate responses may lead to both increased sanctions, as well as referral to a discovery referee.

Motion to Compel Arbitration set for March 22, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.