Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 20STCV35395 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

On September 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Francisco Arechiga and Joseph Faustina filed this action against Defendants Limai Education, Inc. and Limai Holdings, Inc., arising from their employment. The Complaint alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud and concealment; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) race/national origin discrimination; (7) failure to prevent, investigate, and/or remedy unlawful harassment; (8) failure to pay wages due at termination; (9) whistleblower retaliation; (10) misclassification; (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (12) defamation; (13) unfair business practices; and (14) declaratory relief.

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff Joseph Faustina (“Plaintiff”) served Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on Defendant Limai Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Kanani Decl. ¶ 2.) After Plaintiff granted an extension, Defendant provided responses on October 3, 2022. (Kanani Decl. ¶ 3.) The parties met and conferred, and Defendant provided supplemental responses on November 4, 2022. (Kanani Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff still believed the responses were insufficient, so the parties continued to meet and confer. (Kanani Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant did not serve further supplemental responses by the December 28, 2022 deadline. (Kanani Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.)

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a single motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to the Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff also seeks $1,500.00 in sanctions.

Plaintiff was required to file two motions and pay two filing fees, one for each type of discovery. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a second filing fee within five days.

Plaintiff’s separate statement identifies only the discovery requests at issue and Defendant’s responses. Plaintiff did not include a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(3).) Plaintiff also did not include the other discovery responses on which some disputed responses are dependent. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(5).) Despite Defendant raising this issue in its Opposition, Plaintiff did not correct any errors through his Reply.

Under the Court’s First Amended General Order for electronic filing, the table of contents and all attachments, including exhibits, must be bookmarked. (General Order No. 2019-GEN-014-00, at ¶¶ 6(b)-(d); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4).) Defendant’s Opposition was filed as a single 62-page document, including a declaration and multiple exhibits, without any bookmarks.

If Defendant continues to electronically file noncompliant documents, the Court may strike the filings or issue sanctions.

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Rog Nos. 37-40, 47-52, 54, 55, 57-61.

Special Rog No. 37 asks, “Name all companies working under LIMAI EDUCATION.” Special Rog No. 39 asks, “Name all parent companies of LIMAI EDUCATION.” “LIMAI EDUCATION” refers to Limai Education, Inc. (Motion, Ex. A at p. 2.) These Rogs were served on a different defendant, Limai Holdings, Inc., and Plaintiff did not provide any reasons why a further response should be compelled.

Special Rog No. 38 asks, “Name all companies working under LIMAI HOLDINGS.” Special Rog No. 40 asks, “Name all parent companies of LIMAI HOLDINGS.” “LIMAI HOLDINGS” does refer to the moving Defendant. (Motion, Ex. A at p. 2.) This action is based on Plaintiff’s employment with Limai Education, Inc. and Limai Holdings, Inc., not another company. (Complaint ¶ 4.) Plaintiff internally discussed embezzlement by a human resources employee and complained about employee misclassification and favoritism for employees of Chinese nationality. (Complaint ¶¶ 22-23.) Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for being a whistleblower. (Complaint ¶¶ 25-26.) The relevance of all parent companies and “all companies working under” Defendant (a vague and ambiguous phrase) is not apparent, and Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled.

Special Rog No. 47 asks, “Describe with specificity all procedures in effect at any time during the period of 2018 to present, pursuant to which YOU and Defendant LIMAI HOLDINGS account for inter-corporate transactions between one another.” Defendant responded, “For the period of 2018 to present the procedures that were in effect were the Operating Agreement and by-laws of LIMAI HOLDINGS.” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. Additionally, Special Rog No. 47 is nonsensical when served on Defendant Limai Holdings, Inc.

Special Rog No. 48 asks, “Describe with specificity all agreements pursuant to which revenue was, or is to be shared between YOU and Defendant LIMAI HOLDINGS.” (Motion, Ex. A at p. 6.) However, both Plaintiff’s separate statement and Defendant’s responsive separate statement reproduce the text from Special Rog No. 47, and Plaintiff does not appear to provide Defendant’s actual response to Special Rog No. 48. Additionally, this Rog is nonsensical when served on Defendant Limai Holdings, Inc.

Special Rog No. 49 asks, “Describe with specificity all agreements pursuant to which revenue was or is to be shared as between YOU and every fictitious business name listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 45.” Special Rog No. 51 asks, “Describe with specificity all agreements pursuant to which expenses were, or are to be shared between YOU and every fictitious business name listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 45.” Plaintiff’s separate statement does not include Special Rog No. 45, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(5). The Motion also does not provide Defendant’s response to Special Rog No. 45. (See Motion.) Without this information, the Court cannot assess the validity of Defendant’s objections, and Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled.

Special Rog No. 50 asks, “Describe with specificity all agreements pursuant to which expenses were, or are to be shared as between YOU and Defendant LIMAI HOLDINGS.” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. Additionally, this Rog is nonsensical when served on Defendant Limai Holdings, Inc.

Special Rog No. 52 asks, “IDENTIFY all of YOUR shareholders from 2018 to the present. (As used in this interrogatory, “IDENTIFY” means by name, last-known address and telephone number.)” Special Rog No. 54 asks, “State the percentage of ownership interest held by each of YOUR shareholders at any and all times from 2018 to the present.” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. This information does not appear relevant to Plaintiff’s claim, and it invades the privacy of the third-party shareholders without any explanation.

Special Rog No. 55 asks, “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that constitute the YOUR corporate records. . . .” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. The request is overbroad, seemingly irrelevant, and seeks information that Defendant contends includes trade secrets.

Special Rog No. 57 asks, “Identify the services rendered by each employee identified in Special Interrogatory No. 56.” Plaintiff’s separate statement does not include Special Rog No. 56, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(5). The Motion also does not provide Defendant’s response to Special Rog No. 56. (See Motion.) Without this information, the Court cannot assess the validity of Defendant’s objections, and Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled.

Special Rog No. 58 asks, “Identify each service provider which rendered services to YOU at 3452 E Foothill Blvd., Suite 805, Pasadena, CA 91107.” Special Rog No. 59 asks, “For each service listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 58, state if there are any agreements in place between YOU and the service provider.” Special Rog No. 60 asks, “For the service agreements listed in response to Special Interrogatory No. 59, describe with specificity the terms of each agreement.” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. This information does not appear relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

Special Rog No. 61 asks, “Describe with specificity all revenue shared with any other entity from 2018 to present.” Plaintiff does not explain why a further response should be compelled. Defendant contends the information contains trade secrets.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22-30, 32.

RFP No. 10 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contracts, agreements and/or other contractual arrangements between YOU and LIMAI EDUCATION, in effect from 2018 to present.” RFP No. 11 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contracts, agreements and/or other contractual arrangements between YOU and any of YOUR affiliates, in effect from 2018 to present.” Defendant contends that the information contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 12 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any revenue sharing and/or expense sharing arrangements between YOU and LIMAI EDUCATION, in effect from 2018 to present.” RFP No. 13 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any revenue sharing and/or expense sharing arrangements between YOU and any of YOUR affiliates, from 2018 to present.” Defendant contends that the information contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 15 seeks “YOUR Bylaws and any amendments to Bylaws.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 16 seeks “YOUR SS-4 filings and any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the application or issuance of all of YOUR Employer Identification Number(s).” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 18 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS filed by YOU with the California Department of Corporations, including, but not limited to, any application for exemption from any registration requirements RELATING TO any SECURITIES issued by LIMAI EDUCATION.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 20 seeks “YOUR corporate minute books (in the order in which they are maintained) including, but not limited to, organizational minutes, incorporator’s minutes, register of directors, shareholder’s minutes, director’s minutes, annual minutes, and special minutes, along with any and all director or shareholder’s resolutions not otherwise included in any minutes for the period of 2018 to present.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 22 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any business expense incurred by YOU or on YOUR behalf, at any time from 2018 to present, and which was paid from, or out of, the personal or separate funds (inclusive of payments made by individual or corporate credit card) of any of YOUR AFFILIATES, and their RELATED PARTIES.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 23 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any business expense incurred by YOU or on YOUR behalf, at any time from 2018 to present, and which was paid from, or out of, the personal or separate funds (inclusive of payments made by individual or corporate credit card) of LIMAI EDUCATION.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 24 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any revenue shared between YOU and any entity, including LIMAI EDUCATION, at any time from 2018 to present.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 25 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the agreements identified as a response to Special Interrogatory No. 60.” Defendant did not identify agreements in response to Special Rog No. 60, and Plaintiff did not show why a further response is required for Special Rog No. 60 (and Special Rog Nos. 58-59, on which Special Rog No. 60 is dependent).

RFP No. 26 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any agreement held with any entity rendering services to YOU.” RFP No. 27 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any agreement held with any entity rendering services by YOU.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant, overbroad, and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 28 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any insurance policy held by YOU which applies to any of the claims within this matter.” Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. However, this information is facially relevant. Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 28.

RFP No. 29 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any agreements of leases held by YOU.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant, overbroad, and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 30 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO registration of any and all website domains held by you from the inception of the business to present.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

RFP No. 32 seeks “Any DOCUMENTS were [sic] YOU are the guarantor on a lease entered into by LIMAI EDUCATION for the period of 2018 to present.” Defendant contends that the information is irrelevant and contains trade secrets. Plaintiff did not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant must provide supplemental responses to RFP No. 28 within 14 days.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a second filing fee for the improperly combined motion within five days.

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Plaintiff’s Payment of Additional Filing Fee is scheduled for 05/10/2023 (May 10, 2023) at 09:00 AM.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court