Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL CHAPMAN VS FALL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 07/12/2023

Tentative Rulings on Motions to Compel Discovery

Lead case: Chapman v. Fall, Case No. 2022-43403 Consolidated case: Fall v. Chapman, Case No. 2022-52199 Sept. 15, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a dispute over control of two corporations, Alliance Electrical Systems and IAQ Distribution, which operate in the lighting and electrical industry and the municipal air purification business. Fall and Chapman founded the two businesses together in 2018 and 2020, respectively. The two had a falling out in 2022, giving rise to two lawsuits. Following a motion (ROA 89), the cases were consolidated on April 15, 2023. ROA 92.

The defendants in Fall's derivative case sought an order imposing a $50,000.00 bond on Fall pursuant to Corporations Code section 800. ROA 88. Opposition and reply briefing were thereafter filed. ROA 100-107. The court reviewed the papers; following a hearing on May 12, 2023, the court denied the motion. ROA 110.

Discovery disputes have now arisen. Fall seeks an order compelling Chapman's wholly-owned subsidiary, plaintiff Alliance Building Solutions (ABS), to provide further responses to document demand No. 7, as well as an order compelling Chapman to produce documents he previously agreed to produce.

ROA 112-137. Both motions seek the imposition of substantial monetary sanctions. Chapman and ABS filed opposition. ROA 152-158, 160. Fall replied. ROA 161-164. The court has read the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with these motions.

The case is set for trial in June of 2024. ROA 91-94.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995915  49 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAPMAN VS FALL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043403-CU-BT-CTL reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

C. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310(h) and 2032.320(b) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc.

(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The motion to compel Chapman to turn over documents as promised in his previous discovery responses is denied as moot. Chapman has produced the requested documents and is in the process of producing additional documents. (Coopersmith Decl., ¶¶ 3, 9.) To the extent any documents have not yet been turned over, Chapman is directed to produce them by October 13, 2023. All productions must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a), which requires that the documents be 'identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.' B. The motion to compel ABS to provide further responses is granted. Although ABS has produced the accounting software files (see Coopersmith Decl., ¶ 3), ABS has not amended its response to the challenged document request. Accordingly, ABS must serve a further verified response to request 7 by September 29, 2023.

C. Fall's request for monetary sanctions is denied. The court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310(h), 2031.320(b). The court is persuaded that the volume of documents electronically produced adequately explains the delay in completing the production.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995915  49