Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV13831, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV13831, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13831 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-23-24

Case 23STCV13831

Trial Date: 11-12-24

FURTHER ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, V-Stream Aviation Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Betty Chen, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Betty Chen entered into a written contract with defendant V-Stream Aviation Corp. for a one-way private jet aircraft charter from Maui Hawaii to Van Nuys California. The flight date was scheduled for April 15, 2022 at a cost of $47,600. Plaintiff Becky Yue was an intended co-passenger.

On April 8, 2022 Chen cancelled the charger via email “due to covid-19 exposure” with a confirmed positive test result. Chen subsequently requested a refund based on the language in the agreement allowing for a “no charge” refund for cancellations “at least 100 hours in advance of scheduled departure.” Registered agent for V-Stream, Eli Levy, purportedly confirmed the refund in June and July 2022, but no refund appeared.

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complain for Breach of Contract and Conversion. On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Conversion, and Intentional Misrepresentation. On December 22, 2023, the court granted a motion to strike the claims for punitive damages and attorney fees. On January 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Conversion, and Intentional Misrepresentation

RULING: Granted in Part/Denied in Part.

Defendant V-Stream Aviation Corp. (V-Stream) moves to compel further responses to request admissions (set one) numbers 3, 10 and 11 from Plaintiff Betty Chen. The requests seek the following admissions: “Admit that YOU read the CONTRACT before signing it,” “Admit that YOU (Betty Chen) did not pay Defendant the $47,600.00 for the one way flight to Hawaii,” and “Admit that YOU were not going to be a passenger on the one way flight to Hawaii.” Plaintiff submitted general and specific objections, including “vague, ambiguous and uncertain,” with conditional responses, including an admission to reading the contract before signing it, admitting that co-Plaintiff Becky Yue in fact paid the $47,600, and an admission that Chen “did not necessarily intend to be a passenger on one or more of the flight[s] for which payment was made to Defendant.” V-Stream maintains the responses are non-code compliant in that Plaintiff fails to provide a straight-forward response. Plaintiff in opposition challenges the format of the separate statement without any address of the substantive arguments. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The court declines to consider the challenges solely based on the separate statement, and finds the argument sufficiently articulated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).)

The vague, ambiguous and uncertain for of question objections also lack merit. Defendants 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.)

The response to number three (3) technically fails to constitute code-compliant answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.) Plaintiff needs to provide factually consistent information with the “admit” or “deny” response. If Plaintiff read the contract, then an “admit” response with a factual follow-up admitting to reading the contract before signing eliminates the factual incongruity. response.

Numbers 10 and 11, however, both constitute admissions with an explanation regarding the paying party, and lack of intention to join the charter flight. The responses are therefore code compliant.

The motion is therefore granted as to number 3 and denied as to numbers 10 and 11. Plaintiff to serve a revised response to number 3 within 10 days of this order in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subdivision (a).)

Defendant requests sanctions, but only prevailed on one of the three items, while Plaintiff provided no counter request, though could have also made a request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).) The court finds no basis for the imposition of sanctions given the offsetting results in the ruling.

Trial remains set for November 12, 2024.

Moving party to provide notice.

FURTHER FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, V-Stream Aviation Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Betty Chen, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

RULING: Granted.

Defendant V-Stream Aviation Corp. (V-Stream) moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one) numbers 17.1, 50.1 and 50.2 from Plaintiffs Betty Chen and Becky Yue. The court consolidates the motions into a single ruling.

Plaintiffs submitted general and specific objections, including “vague, ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome,” as well as “legal conclusions, attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine” to numbers 17.1 and 50.1. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs follow-up with reference the “first amended complaint” and documents potentially in the possession of third party “Pegasus.” On number 50.2, Plaintiffs respond with “yes,” and refer to the same items as the prior two responses. Defendant maintains the responses fail to specifically address the sub-parts. Plaintiff in opposition first challenges the format of the separate statement, contends the motion lacks a legal or factual basis compelling further responses, then maintains the responses are factually sufficient and code compliant. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The court declines to consider the challenges solely based on the separate statement, and finds the argument sufficiently articulated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

On the overbroad objections, the court finds no support, especially in response to form interrogatories in response to a complaint brought by responding parties. “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden. When a judge evaluates such factors to determine whether a party has acted reasonably and in good faith in attempting informal resolution, a factual component of decision, derived from the trial judge's knowledge of the case, is inevitably involved.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

On the burdensome and harassing objections, 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 opposition lacks support. Again, the items involves response to form interrogatories in response to a complaint brought by responding parties.

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. (Id. at p. 495; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217–218.)

Neither of the subject objections present any basis of support. The court declines to consider any “legal conclusion” objections as well due to lack of support.

“Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition’, ‘See my pleading’, or ‘See the financial statement’. Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784.) The responses to previously produced documents and/or extrinsic references are improper.

The remainder of the responses are otherwise incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210-2030.220.)

The court therefore orders supplemental responses to the form interrogatories 17.1, 50.1 and 50.2, from both plaintiffs Becky Yue and Betty Chen within 10 days of this order.

Sanctions of $500 ($250 per motion) imposed ($250 per plaintiff) joint and several with counsel for Plaintiffs. Payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Trial remains set for November 12, 2024.

Moving party to provide notice.