Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV15612, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15612    Hearing Date: June 21, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     June 21, 2024             TRIAL DATE: February 11, 2025

CASE:                         Baker Electric, Inc. v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

CASE NO.:                 21STCV15612           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Baker Electric Inc.

CASE HISTORY:

·         04/26/21: Complaint filed.

·         07/22/21: Cross-Complaint filed by Metropolitan Water District as to Baker Electric, Inc.

·         08/25/21: Cross-Complaint filed by Baker Electric as to Hampton Tedder Electric Co., et al.

·         11/19/21: Cross-Complaint filed by Hampton Tedder Electric Co. as to Baker Electric, Inc.

·         12/02/21: Cross-Complaint filed by Environmental Construction Group Inc. as to Baker Electric, Inc.

·         02/09/23: Cross-Complaint filed by Applied Restoration, Inc. as to Baker Electric, Inc.

·         12/20/23: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed by Metropolitan Water District.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff according to the terms of a contract to replace power cables at the Colorado River Aqueduct pumping plants.

Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Plaintiff Baker Electric, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART with respect to calendar years 2019 and 2020 only.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California moves to compel further responses to requests for production propounded to Plaintiff Baker Electric, Inc.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant served its eighth set of requests for production on Plaintiff via electronic service on January 4, 2024. (Declaration of Jack W. Fleming ISO Mot. Exh. 1 POS.) Plaintiff’s responses were served on February 5, 2024. During the meet-and-confer process, the parties agreed to multiple extensions of the time to bring this motion, all of which were confirmed in writing, with the most recent extension setting the deadline for this motion as May 31, 2024. (Id. Exh. 16.) This motion was filed and served on May 28, 2024, three days ahead of that deadline. The motion is therefore timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

            The declaration of Jack Fleming in support of this motion describes the lengthy attempt by the parties to resolve this dispute informally through emails, letters, and telephone conversations, without success. (Fleming Decl. ¶¶ 9-19.) Defendant has thus satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligation.

Good Cause

            Defendant moves to compel a further response to Request for Production Set 8, No. 5. This request seeks

ALL DOCUMENTS which show all individual transactions that evidence or comprise the totals on BAKER’s trial balance accounts for Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, including the date, vendor, employee name, amount, transaction/reference number (including without limitation the invoice number, transaction ID, batch number and/or source journal) and other related detail, for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 calendar years.

(Fleming Decl. Exh. 1. No. 5.) Defendant characterizes this request as a necessary measure to probe the basis of a portion of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s claim in the Complaint for unpaid compensation includes $1.7 million for “Selling, General and Administrative expenses,” colloquially known as “home office overhead” expenses for 2019 and 2020—the years on which Plaintiff performed work on the Colorado River Aqueduct Pumping Plant cable replacement project. (Fleming Decl. ¶ 7; Exh. 6.) Defendant contends that these costs are categorically improper under the contract, and, even if they are not categorically excluded, some subset of those claimed costs are not properly considered “home office overhead.” Defendant has already obtained top level home office expense reports for 2019 and 2020 (Fleming Decl. Exh. 5) and Trial Balance reports for 2019 and 2020. (Id. Exhs. 7-8.) These documents show home office overhead costs are grouped by cost code. Defendant seeks the underlying records for the transactions to identify transactions which they contend should not be included in the calculation of damages. In support of this position, Defendant cites examples of potentially duplicative expenses or expenses that should have been allocated to other projects instead of “home office overhead.” (Fleming Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendant also identifies costs which it believes may include charges that “do not inure to the benefit of [the] Project.” (Id.)

            In response, Plaintiff asserts that the requested documents are irrelevant because home office overhead costs, by definition, “cannot be attributed or charged to any particular contract.” (JMR Construction Corp. v. Environmental Assessment & Remediation Management, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 571, 584.) Plaintiff characterizes Defendant’s request as an unchecked fishing expedition into all of Plaintiff’s home office costs, and asserts that Plaintiff’s accounting system precludes duplicative cost billing. This argument misses the point of Defendant’s reasoning: Defendant contends that, even if Plaintiff’s general claim for home office overhead is proper, its calculation of damages is incorrect because it includes costs which should be allocated elsewhere or are duplicative. The records sought are facially relevant to these issues, especially where, as here, the validity of the legal theories asserted by the parties is not before the Court on this motion. Defendant has demonstrated good cause for this request with respect to transactions in 2019 and 2020.

            With respect to the records for 2017, 2018, and 2021, Defendant makes no effort to justify the request for these records. By Defendant’s own admission, Plaintiff performed no work on the project during those years, and thus overhead costs incurred during that period would not be relevant to the home office overhead calculation even if it were proper. Defendant’s papers do not demonstrate that these costs are at issue or that any discovery regarding those costs is reasonably calculated to lead the disclosure of admissible evidence in this case. The Court therefore finds that Defendant has not justified this request with respect to the years 2017, 2018, or 2021.

Plaintiff’s Objection

            In response to the request, Plaintiff objected that the documents were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to the years 2017, 2018, and 2021. (Fleming Decl. Exh. 2. No. 5.) Plaintiff also objected that the request is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and overbroad in its entirety. (Id.)

            With respect to the years 2017, 2018, and 2021, the Court concurs with Plaintiff for the reasons stated above. As to Plaintiff’s objection to the remainder of the request, however, Plaintiff does not offer adequate evidence of an undue burden. An assertion that Plaintiff’s accountants would require “hours upon hours” to prepare nonspecific “detailed breakdowns” is not evidence of burden, even when contained in a declaration by Plaintiff’s vice president of finance. (Declaration of Gerard Woods ISO Opp. ¶ 8.) Moreover, the issue of whether Defendant is entitled to underlying source documents after receiving the records sought here is not before the Court on this motion, and the Court cannot rule on a document request that has not yet been made. As it stands, Defendant has shown good cause for the materials sought with respect to 2019 and 2020, while Plaintiff has not offered competent evidence that the burden of producing these materials is disproportionate its materiality. Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses with respect to calendar years 2019 and 2020.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED IN PART with respect to calendar years 2019 and 2020 only.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  June 21, 2024                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.