Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV47912, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 20STCV47912 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
tentative rulinG
Defendant Vlad Gold’s Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ request for monetary
sanctions against Defendant Gold is also DENIED.
Background
On December 15, 2020, Global Interactive Enterprises, Inc. and CHWD Ventures, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Maybrook Homes, LLC, Hercules Development, LLC, and Ezequiel Serebrisky.
The operative First Amended Complaint added Vlad Gold fka Val J. Fayngold as a Defendant and asserted causes of action for:
1) Breach of Contract;
2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
3) Fraud;
4) Shareholder Derivative-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
6) Shareholder Derivative-Gross Mismanagement; and
7) Shareholder Derivative – Abuse of Control
On October 12, 2022, Defendant Vlad Gold moved for a Protective Oder. Plaintiff Global Interactive Enterprises, Inc. (“Global”) filed opposing papers to the motion on December 05, 2022.
No reply has been filed.
Legal Standard
The court, for good cause shown, may make an order that justice requires to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense.¿ A protective order may include, but is not limited to, an order that: (1) the set of requests or particular requests in the set need not be answered at all; (2) that the number of requests is unwarranted; (3) that the time specified to respond to the requests be extended; (4) that a trade secret or other confidential research not be admitted or be admitted only in a certain way; or (5) that some or all of the answers to requests be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (b), 2031.060, subd. (b), 2033.080, subd. (b).)¿ ¿
If the motion is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the responding party provide the discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are just.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090, subd. (c), 2031.060, subd. (c), 2033.080, subd. (c).)¿Courts have considerable discretion in granting and crafting protective orders. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)
MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080 require that a motion for a protective order must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.
The Court is satisfied that
the meet and confer requirement has been met. (See Gold Decl. ¶ 5-7, Ex. B.)
Discussion
Defendant Gold moves for a Protective Order staying any obligation to respond to written discovery until the hearing on Defendant Gold’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP) scheduled to be heard on March 24, 2023.
Defendant Gold asserts that Plaintiffs propounded 41 Requests for Admission and responding will take require many hours and will likely require Gold to hire an attorney to respond. Since the upcoming MJOP may be dispositive in Gold’s favor, Gold finds that responding to discovery will be a waste of resources and an inequitable burden on Gold. (Mot. at 3:23.) Moreover, Gold asserts Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if discovery is stayed until the MJOP hearing.
Plaintiffs assert they will be prejudiced by the delay and that they are entitled to conduct discovery. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to complete discovery as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020 subd. (a) [“[A]ny party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day . . ..”].)
More importantly, the fact that the hearing on the MJOP may be dispositive is not good cause to postpone discovery, regardless of how inconvenient responding to discovery may be. Any party can propound discovery at any time as a matter of right. Should any of the discovery propounded on Defendant Gold be irrelevant or burdensome, Defendant Gold can object to the specific discovery at issue. Accordingly, a protective order is unwarranted.
The Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Gold is also DENIED.
Conclusion
Defendant Vlad Gold’s Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Gold is also DENIED.
Defendant Gold shall give notice.