Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2020-01152866 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01152866, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

As to all of the below rulings, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ (Cagney Enterprises, LLC, Mario Marovic, Ashlea Esparza Marovic, and Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc.) Request for Judicial Notice, filed on 7-13-22 under ROA No. 163, as immaterial to the court’s decisions below. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Parks District v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18.)

Motion No. 1:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Mario Marovic (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, states in part, “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete . . . [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. . . . [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given 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, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 states in part, “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. . . .”

Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo) provides, “Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories. [Citation.] Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. [Citation.] [¶] A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. [Citation.] 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. [Citation.] [¶] A party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ [Citation.]” (Footnote 9 omitted.)

The Motion seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory (FI) Nos. 50.6, 8.4, and 8.8. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 123.)

First, the court notes that FI No. 50.6 is no longer at issue based on Moving Party’s Consolidated Reply (Reply) filed on 7-19-22 under ROA No. 171. (Reply; 4:14-17.) Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as MOOT as to FI No. 50.6.

FI No. 8.4 requests, “State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how that amount was calculated.” (MPSS; Uppercase and emphasis in SS.) Plaintiff responded, “N/A” to FI No. 8.4. (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement (PSS) filed on 7-13-22 under ROA No. 167. This response does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 8.4.

FI No. 8.8 requests, “Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.” (MPSS; Uppercase and emphasis in SS.) Plaintiff responded, “Responding Party believes the quantification of its monetary loss (both to date and prospectively) is a matter of expert testimony. Responding Party’s investigation is ongoing.” This response is nonresponsive because the FI No. 8.8 requests an estimate as to Plaintiff’s future lost income. FI No. 8.8 does not seek the quantification of future lost income, but seeks to determine the existence of damages based on future lost income. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to FI No. 8.8.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Mario Marovic as to FI Nos. 8.4 and 8.8. The court DENIES the Motion as MOOT as to FI No. 50.6. The court orders Plaintiff—Mario Marovic to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to FI No. 8.4 and 8.8 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Mario Marovic in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

The Motion seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory (FI) Nos. 50.6, 8.4, and 8.8. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 123.)

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic as to FI Nos. 8.4 and 8.8. The court DENIES the Motion as MOOT as to FI No. 50.6. The court orders Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to FI No. 8.4 and 8.8 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below.

The Motion seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory (FI) Nos. 50.6, 8.4, and 8.8. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 123.)

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. as to FI Nos. 8.4 and 8.8. The court DENIES the Motion as MOOT as to FI No. 50.6. The court orders Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to FI No. 8.4 and 8.8 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Mario Marovic (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 131, is GRANTED.

The Motion seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory (SI) Nos. 1-22. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 127). As to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14, Plaintiff—Mario Marovic responded, “N/A.” (MPSS.) These responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14.

As to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, Plaintiff—Mario Marovic objected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), because these SIs refer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (MPSS.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), states, “Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710).” Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287-1288 (Clement), states, “Plaintiffs do not contend that any of the interrogatories to which they objected on this basis were unclear, or that the interrogatories, considered either singly or collectively, in any way undermined or violated the presumptive numerical limit of 35 interrogatories of section 2030.030. Yet plaintiffs seized on what might have been at most an arguable technical violation of the rule, to object to interrogatories that were clear and concise where the interrogatories did not even arguably violate the presumptive numerical limitation set by statute. In so doing, plaintiffs themselves engaged in the type of gamesmanship and delay decried by the drafters of the Act. [¶] The rule that each specially prepared interrogatory must be ‘full and complete’ by itself (§ 2030.060, subd. (d)), together with the rule that ‘[n]o specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question’ (§ 2030.060, subd. (f)) ‘prevent evasion of the statutory limit on the number of interrogatories that one party may propound to another.’ [Citation.] (Footnote 8 omitted; Italics in Clement.) “Even the treatise upon which plaintiffs rely urges a practical approach to questions of interpretation. In referring to the prohibition of ‘compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive’ questions (§ 2030.060, subd. (f)), Weil & Brown point out that the ‘purpose again is to prevent questions worded so as to require more information than could be obtained by 35 separate questions. [¶] How strictly this rule will be applied remains to be seen. Arguably, any question containing an ‘and’ or ‘or’ is compound and conjunctive!’ (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 8:978.1, p. 8F–21.) They comment that ‘[t]he rule should probably apply only where more than a single subject is covered by the question. Questions regarding the same subject should be allowed although they include an “and” or “or.” For example: “State your first name, middle name and last name, and your current address and telephone number.” Since only one subject is involved—identification of responding party—the question should not be objectionable because of the “ands” used.’ (Id. at ¶ 8:979, p. 8F–21.)” (Id., at p. 1291; Italics in Clement.)

The reference to the SAC in the SI’s that are in dispute pertain to the single subject addressed in each SI. Although there may be a technical violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), the SIs at issue are sufficiently clear for Plaintiff—Mario Marovic to provide an informed response. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Mario Marovic. The court orders Plaintiff—Mario Marovic to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to SI Nos. 1-22 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Mario Marovic in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 5:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 131, is GRANTED.

The Motion seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory (SI) Nos. 1-22. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 127). As to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14, Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC responded, “N/A.” (MPSS.) These responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14.

As to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC objected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), because these SIs refer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (MPSS.)

The reference to the SAC in the SI’s that are in dispute pertain to the single subject addressed in each SI. Although there may be a technical violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), the SIs at issue are sufficiently clear for Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC to provide an informed response. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC. The court orders Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to SI Nos. 1-22 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 6:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 131, is GRANTED.

The Motion seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory (SI) Nos. 1-22. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 127). As to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14, Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic responded, “N/A.” (MPSS.) These responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14.

As to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic objected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), because these SIs refer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (MPSS.)

The reference to the SAC in the SI’s that are in dispute pertain to the single subject addressed in each SI. Although there may be a technical violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), the SIs at issue are sufficiently clear for Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic to provide an informed response. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic. The court orders Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to SI Nos. 1-22 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Ashlea Esparza Marovic in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 7:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 131, is GRANTED.

The Motion seeks further responses to Special Interrogatory (SI) Nos. 1-22. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 127). As to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14, Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. responded, “N/A.” (MPSS.) These responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14.

As to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc.objected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), because these SIs refer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (MPSS.)

The reference to the SAC in the SI’s that are in dispute pertain to the single subject addressed in each SI. Although there may be a technical violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (d), the SIs at issue are sufficiently clear for Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to provide an informed response. Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to SI Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 129, directed to Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. The court orders Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to provide verified, Code of Civil Procedure section compliant responses to SI Nos. 1-22 within 14 days of the date of service of the notice of the court’s order. The court awards a monetary sanction against Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. in the amount of $450.00 payable to Moving Party. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (d); Feng Decl., ¶ 12.)

Moving Party is to give notice.

Motion No. 8:

Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production directed to Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. (Motion), filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 130, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides in part, “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. [¶] (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: [¶] (1) the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. [¶] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . [¶] (c) Unless notice of this motion is given 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 demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

The Motion seeks further responses to Request for Production (RFP) Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 19. (Moving Party’s Separate Statement (MPSS) filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 125). As to RFP Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. responded, “Responding Party agrees to produce the requested records to the extent they exist and are within its possession and/or control.” (MPSS.) Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub Inc.’s Separate Statement (PSS), filed on 7-13-22 under ROA No. 169, states, “Responding Party has provided a verified response and all responsive documents to the requested item” as to RFP Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. (PSS.)

As to RFP Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Moving Party contends that Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub Inc.’s responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, and that it has not provided its Lease Agreement with Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, LLC. (Motion; 4:26-5:18.) First, to the extent that Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, the court ORDERS Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to re-served the documents as to RFP Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). Second, the Lease Agreement is relevant under paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on 9-21-20 under ROA No. 60. Therefore, the court ORDERS Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to provide the Lease Agreement. (See also, ¶ 7 of the SAC.)

Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. objects to RFP No. 19 as overbroad and also asserts a privacy objection. (MPSS). RFP No. 19 requests, “All of YOUR financial statements, including, but not limited to, balance sheets, income statements, and/or cash flow statements, between December 8, 2010 to the present.” (MPSS; Uppercase in MPSS.)

“The right of privacy is an ‘ “inalienable right” ’ secured by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. [Citation.] The right of privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of private or personal information and ‘extends to one’s confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life.’ [Citation.] (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754 (SCC).) “The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest. [Citations.] One such interest, evidenced by California's broad discovery statutes, is ‘ “the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings.” ’ [Citation.] When an individual’s right of privacy in his financial affairs conflicts with the public need for discovery in litigation, the competing interests must be carefully balanced. [Citation.] Even where the balance weighs in favor of disclosure of private information, the scope of the disclosure will be narrowly circumscribed; such an invasion of the right of privacy ‘ “must be drawn with narrow specificity” ’ and is permitted only to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” [Citations.] (Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316; disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) SCC provides, “We conclude corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution protects the privacy rights of “people” only. ‘ “[T]he constitutional provision simply does not apply to corporations.” ’ [Citations.] While corporations do have a right to privacy, it is not a constitutional right. The corporate right to privacy is a lesser right than that held by human beings and is not considered a fundamental right. [Citation.]” (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 755-756; Footnotes 3 and 4 omitted.)

Williams v. Superior Court (Williams) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, explains, “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citations.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interest disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interest or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. [Citation.]” “To the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the other considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633, they are disapproved.” (Id., at p. 557.)

The PSS states, “This litigation arises out of violations of the REA that took place after the defendant acquired the adjoining property in 2019. The current request seeks documents going back almost a decade before the triggering events. Moving party does not even attempt to explain how those records are relevant and are not overbroad. Accordingly, at a minimum, the court should limit the scope of the request. Furthermore, as noted in the response to the form interrogatories seeking information on plaintiff’s income, this appears to be a matter of expert testimony. Thus, and to the extent that plaintiff tenders an expert on the issue, defendant will have the opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue.” (PSS; 4:17-2.)

RFP No. 19 is not overbroad in terms of time because Plaintiff—Cagney Enterprises, Inc. entered into the First Amendment to Reciprocal Easement Agreement on 12-8-10. (SAC, ¶ 10.) Since Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. contends it lost income (Feng Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3, and Exhibits 4 and 10) based on FI No. 8.1, the court finds that RFP is not overbroad in terms of time.

As to privacy, the court recognizes that Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. has a lesser degree of privacy in its financial records. In conducting the balancing under Williams, the court finds that Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. has a privacy interest in preventing its competitor (Moving Party) from learning its financial information. Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc., however, has placed its financial information at issue by seeking damages for lost income. Therefore, the court ORDERS Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to comply with RFP No. 19 pursuant to an “attorneys’-eyes only” protective order.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Moving Party’s (The Landing M2, LLC) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production directed to Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. filed on 2-24-22 under ROA No. 130. As to RFP Nos., 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the court ORDERS Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc. to re-serve the documents requested by RFP Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a), and to provide the Lease Agreement discussed above within 15 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling. As to RFP No. 19, the court ORDERS to produce the documents requested by RFP No. 19 pursuant to an “attorneys’-eyes only” protective order. within 15 days of the notice of the court’s ruling. The court does not award a monetary sanction because Plaintiff—Malarky’s Irish Pub, Inc was substantially justified in opposing this Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).

Moving Party is to give notice.