Superior Court, State of California



DATE: JULY 14, 2022 TIME: 1:30 P.M.

PREVAILING PARTY SHALL PREPARE THE ORDER

UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED (SEE RULE OF COURT 3.1312)

|LINE # |CASE # |CASE TITLE |RULING |

|LINE 1 |18CV324210 |Chambers v. Merchants and Medical |See tentative ruling. The Court will prepare the final |

| | |Credit Corporation Inc., et al. |order. |

|LINE 2 |20CV374328 |JLA Advisors, LLC v. Rajagopalan, |See tentative ruling. The Court will prepare the final |

| | |et al. |order. |

|LINE 3 |17CV306546 |Rogers v. iTy Labs Corp., et al |In an abundance of caution to protect possibly-confidential |

| | | |information, the Court sent the tentative ruling directly to|

| | | |the parties. The Court will prepare the final order, which |

| | | |will be in the public record unless the parties sufficiently|

| | | |explain to the Court why the final order should be sealed. |

|LINE 4 |17CV306546 |Rogers v. iTy Labs Corp., et al |See line 3. |

|LINE 5 | | | |

|LINE 6 | | | |

|LINE 7 | | | |

|LINE 8 | | | |

|LINE 9 | | | |

|LINE 10 | | | |

|LINE 11 | | | |

|LINE 12 | | | |

|LINE 13 | | | |

Calendar Line 1

Case Name:   Pamela Shereé Chambers v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation,

Inc., et al.  

Case No.:   18CV324210  

This is a putative class action alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act” or “RFDCPA”). Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial and further discovery responses from (1) Defendant Terry Lee Brewer and (2) Defendant Andrea Ina-Michelle Church.  Defendants oppose both motions.

As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motions in part and DENIES them in part.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel each defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 6 and Requests for Production Nos. 1–3, 8, and 12, as well as their initial responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.[1] Defendants oppose the motions on both procedural and substantive grounds.

A. Procedural Issues

Defendants oppose the motions on the grounds that Plaintiff should have filed a total of four motions and paid a total of four filing fees instead of just two; Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing her motions; and Plaintiff’s separate statements are incomplete and misleading.

Defendants cite no authority to support their argument that Plaintiff was not permitted to file a single motion addressed to multiple sets of discovery requests, and the Court is aware of none. The Court finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred prior to filing her motions—including during multiple informal discovery conferences with the Court. And because any technical defect in Plaintiff’s separate statement does not impede Defendants’ ability to respond to the motions, or the Court’s ability to analyze them, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the motions on their merits. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409, fn. 14 [“Although the court rule requiring a separate statement on a motion to compel further responses (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020) would permit the trial court to continue or deny a motion to compel when no separate statement is provided, it does not limit a trial court’s discretion to compel further answers notwithstanding the absence of a separate statement.”].)

Defendants’ procedural arguments consequently lack merit.

B. Motions to Compel Further Responses

1. Legal Standard

  A party propounding a request for production may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit. (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); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 (“Kirkland”).)  Good cause is established simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)  If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections.  (Ibid.)       

 

A party propounding interrogatories and requests for admission may also move for an order compelling further responses if it deems an answer is evasive or incomplete and/or an objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) and 2033.290, subd. (a).)  The statutes do not require any showing of good cause in support of such a motion.  (See id., §§ 2030.300 and 2033.290; see also Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 (“Coy”).)  The burden is on the responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully answer.  (Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220–221.)  

2. Special Interrogatory No. 6

Special Interrogatory No. 6 directs Defendants to state their net worth and how it was computed, including by identifying all documents that support Defendants’ answers. Defendants responded by attaching spreadsheets setting forth their net worth, explaining how their net worth was calculated, and describing documents used in the calculation.

Plaintiff argues that these responses are “not credible” for various reasons. But this is not a basis to compel further responses. Plaintiff is free to conduct additional discovery to prove that Defendants’ responses are false or incorrect, but there is no basis for the Court to order them to provide further responses on the record before it.

3. The Requests for Production

Requests for Production Nos. 1 & 2 seek documents summarizing or memorializing any written or oral communications, respectively, between Defendants any anyone including mailing vendors about the “design, drafting, review, evaluation, approval, use, or mailing of” the collection letters at issue in this action. Defendants responded by interposing objections—including that responsive documents are not in their possession, custody, or control—and referring Plaintiff to documents produced by Defendant Merchant & Medical Credit Corporation Inc. (“MMCC”) in response to assertedly identical requests served on MMCC. Defendants then served supplemental responses stating, “[a]fter a reasonable and diligent inquiry, [Defendant] is not aware of any additional responsive documents to this Request.”

Good cause clearly supports these requests, and Plaintiff correctly argues that Defendants’ responses are not code-compliant. Defendants must provide clear statements of compliance or inability to comply, without reference to MMCC’s responses. Defendants do not defend their objections to these requests, which are OVERRULED.

Request for Production No. 3 encompasses documents summarizing or memorializing written communications between Defendants “and anyone, including but not limited to” the other individual defendants in this action, “which in ANY way RELATE to or reference this lawsuit.” Defendants’ initial responses to these requests were consistent with their initial responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1 & 2. Defendants served supplemental responses objecting based on “the attorney-client privilege, the attorney-work product doctrine, and/or other rules of privilege or confidentiality set forth in constitutional, statutory, or common law.” The supplemental responses state that “[s]ubject to and without waiving these objections, and after a reasonable and diligent inquiry, [Defendant] is not aware of any responsive documents.”

Good cause supports these requests. Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived any objections to these requests by failing to serve timely initial responses. But Defendants served timely boilerplate objections, which are adequate to preserve privilege objections.  (See Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188 [boilerplate assertions of the attorney-client and work product privileges are adequate to preserve these objections].) Defendants’ other objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff urges that Defendants must provide a privilege log identifying any documents withheld on the basis of privilege, along with code-compliant statements of inability to comply identifying the reason for their inability to comply. The Court agrees.

Request for Production No. 8 seeks Defendants’ state and federal income tax returns for the last two years, and Request for Production No. 12 seeks any credit applications they submitted in the same timeframe. Defendants responded by interposing objections, including based on privilege and confidentiality, and stating they would not produce any responsive documents.

Again, Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived any objections to these requests by failing to serve timely responses, but their boilerplate objections likely suffice to preserve objections based on privilege, confidentiality, and related concerns. In any event, as explained by the Court in a prior order in this case, “Plaintiff generally is entitled to investigate the unverified net worth information provided by [Defendants] by reviewing relevant documents. The Court, however, will limit discovery if a particular document request or interrogatory by Plaintiff is substantially overbroad or not well designed to obtain net worth information.” (11/23/2020 Order, p. 15.) In its prior order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel the same requests at issue here, as propounded on Defendant James Matthew Hresko. For the reasons discussed in that order, the Court will also deny the requests before it now. Plaintiff has not shown that good cause supports these particular requests, considering the other net worth information she has presumably obtained from these defendants consistent with the Court’s prior order. But as with Mr. Hresko, if Plaintiff is unable to obtain the information she needs without resort to Defendants’ tax returns and credit applications, she may renew her requests at a later time.

C. Motions to Compel Initial Responses

Defendants do not dispute that they failed to provide any response to Form Interrogatory 17.1. They accordingly waived any objections to this interrogatory. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Plaintiff need only show that the discovery was properly propounded and a response was not served to obtain an order compelling initial responses. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411–412; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

In opposition to Plaintiff’s motions, Defendants offer a plethora of arguments as to why they should not have to respond to these standard form interrogatories, none of which are well-taken. Defendants must respond to these requests.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED IN PART as to Request for Production Nos. 1–3 and Form Interrogatory 17.1. Defendants shall serve verified, code-compliant further responses to these requests (and interrogatory) and produce all responsive documents in conformity therewith within 30 days of the filing of this order. Their responses shall be without objection, except for any preserved objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine applicable to individual documents. Along with their responses, Defendants shall provide a privilege log identifying any documents withheld on the basis of these privileges and providing a factual basis for the privilege claimed.

Plaintiff’s motions are otherwise DENIED.

The Court will prepare the order.

***

LAW AND MOTION HEARING PROCEDURES 

Remote hearings are required. If a party gives notice that a tentative ruling will be contested, any party seeking to participate in the hearing remotely should contact CourtCall. If a party wants to appear in person, please contact Rowena Walker (rwalker@) to reschedule the hearing. 

 

Public access to hearings is available on a listen-only line by calling 888-808-6929 (access code 2752612). 

 

State and local rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a court order. These rules apply while in court and also while participating in a hearing remotely or listening in on a public access line. No court order has been issued which would allow recording of any portion of this motion calendar. 

 

The court does not provide court reporters for proceedings in the complex civil litigation departments. Any party wishing to retain a court reporter to report a hearing may do so in compliance with this Court’s October 13, 2020 Policy Regarding Privately Retained Court Reporters. The court reporter may participate remotely and need not be present in the courtroom.  

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 2

Case Name:   JLA Advisors, LLC v. Nara Rajagopalan, et al.  

Case No.:   20CV374328  

These cross-actions arise from Plaintiff JLA Advisors, LLC’s engagement by ASIP Holdings, LLC and its subsidiary Q Networks to analyze and implement business opportunities in the secure 5G mobile network field.

JLA alleges that it hired Defendant Nara Rajagopalan and his company, Defendant Bay Views LLC, to consult on the project. But Mr. Rajagopalan breached the agreements governing his work, interfered with JLA’s relationship with ASIP Holdings and Q Networks, and wrongly claimed ownership of intellectual property developed in connection with the project. In a cross-complaint, Mr. Rajagopalan alleges that he never signed the draft consulting agreement and was not paid for much of his work. Moreover, he disclosed his other work for Q Networks—on his own time—on technology outside the scope of the JLA project to Cross-Complainant and -Defendant John Trobough, who is JLA’s managing member as well as “Co-Chief Executive Officer” of Q Networks and a managing member of ASIP Holdings. Mr. Rajagopalan alleges that he was promised equity in Q Networks for this work, but Mr. Trobough interfered.

Before the Court are JLA’s motions to compel Mr. Rajagopalan’s further responses to (1) interrogatories from its Third Set of Special Interrogatories (“SI”s) and (2) requests for production from its Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”s). Mr. Rajagopalan opposes both motions.

As discussed below, the Court GRANTS JLA’s motions.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to SIs 65–68, 71, 72, 82, 84, and 85 and RPDs 52, 54–56, 59, and 60. Mr. Rajagopalan promises to provide further responses to some requests and contends that others seek confidential information relating to an entity he founded that is not relevant to this action, called Falconeer.

A. Legal Standard

  A party propounding a request for production may move for an order compelling a further response if it deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, or an objection is without merit. (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); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 (“Kirkland”).)  Good cause is established simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)  If good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections.  (Ibid.)       

 

A party propounding interrogatories may also move for an order compelling further responses if it deems an answer is evasive or incomplete and/or an objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  The statute does not require any showing of good cause in support of such a motion. (See id., § 2030.300; see also Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 (“Coy”).)  The burden is on the responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully answer.  (Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220–221.)  

B. The RPDs

1. Good Cause for Discovery About Falconeer and Jayant Walvekar

To support JLA’s motion, Mr. Trobough submits a declaration explaining why he believes Falconeer is relevant to this action. Mr. Trobough explains that, while its target clients are hospitals rather than the Department of Defense (Q Networks’s target customer), “the underlying software technology for end point or device management, security, secure communications, end user provisioning and being a Cloud-based system, are the same technology characteristics and features of what we designed, developed, and started to deliver via software under our JLA Consulting Agreement to ASIP Holdings’ subsidiary Q Networks and ultimately to its affiliate SEMPRE.” (Decl. of John Trobough ISO Mot., ¶ 3, emphasis omitted.) Moreover, when Mr. Rajagopalan was consulting for JLA, he asked if he could hire Jayant Walvekar as a sub-consultant, and that request was granted, so that Mr. Walvekar was given access to the confidential information associated with the JLA project. (Id., ¶ 6.) Mr. Walvekar was also an officer of SEMPRE and became partners with Mr. Rajagopalan in Falconeer (id., ¶ 7), and there is evidence that SEMPRE is working with Falconeer on secure communication devices or software for hospitals and medical professionals (id., ¶ 8). This explanation establishes good cause for discovery concerning Mr. Walvekar and Falconeer.

Mr. Rajagopalan responds that he has provided verified statements establishing that Falconeer is not relevant to this case. But he provides no such statement in support of his oppositions. Apparently, Mr. Rajagopalan is referring to interrogatory responses stating that Falconeer will not be involved in activities relating to “RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY,” as defined by him. But this does not address the showing of relevance made by JLA or explain why Falconeer’s technology is not relevant to this case. The attorney argument presented in Mr. Rajagopalan’s oppositions is no better.

JLA has established good cause for discovery concerning Falconeer and Mr. Rajagopalan’s work with Mr. Walvekar more generally. And any documents produced in response to such discovery can be appropriately designated under the protective order in this case.

2. The Specific Requests at Issue

RPD 52 seeks all communications and agreements with Mr. Walvekar since July 1, 2019, including work product, proposals, and roadmaps. RPD 55 requests all documents Mr. Walvekar received from Mr. Rajagopalan since November 1, 2019, and RPD 56 demands all documents that relate to any projects Mr. Rajagopalan collaborated on with Mr. Walvekar since July 1, 2019. RPD 60 encompasses documents that reflect or relate to the nature of the present and intended business of Falconeer. Mr. Rajagopalan stated in response to these requests that he would produce such documents involving only “RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY,” defined as (a) technology in the secure 5G mobile network field, (b) technology related to a roadmap for Q Networks’ Cloud Strategy, or (iii) VPMN Results, as the terms are used in the First Amended Complaint. And Mr. Rajagopalan indicated he had no responsive documents as to such technology, other than those already produced.

RPD 54 calls for documents that reflect or relate to the terms of Mr. Walvekar’s employment as the Chief Technology Officer of Falconeer. Mr. Rajagopalan responded that this information is “personal and private to Mr. Walvekar.” Finally, RPD 59 seeks all documents concerning the founding of, formation of, or investment in Falconeer. Mr. Rajagopalan responded that he would produce documents relating to the founding and formation of Falconeer, but not to investments in the company.

In opposition to JLA’s motion, Mr. Rajagopalan argues in a general manner that all of these requests are irrelevant and/or overbroad. But for the reasons already discussed, JLA has shown good cause for this discovery. Full and complete responses without the “RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY” and other limitations imposed by Mr. Rajagopalan are warranted.

C. The SIs

SI 65 seeks Mr. Walvekar’s contact information. SI 68 asks if Mr. Walvekar has a nondisclosure agreement with SEMPRE. SIs 82, 84, and 85 request information about any bank accounts, leases, and vendor payments held or made by Bay Views, LLC.

Mr. Rajagopalan promises to provide further responses to these interrogatories by June 28, 2022, the date that Plaintiff’s reply was due. But in its reply, JLA stated that it had not yet received the promised responses. Absent any further updates from the parties, the Court will order Mr. Rajagopalan to provide complete further responses to these interrogatories.

SI 71 asks Mr. Rajagopalan to identify the founders of Falconeer. Mr. Rajagopalan purports to do so in his opposition brief, but JLA responds on reply that it is entitled to a verified, code-compliant response. Plaintiff is correct, and the Court will order that response.

Finally, SI 66 directs Mr. Rajagopalan to state the terms of any agreement governing Mr. Walvekar’s employment as CTO of Falconeer. Mr. Rajagopalan responded that this is “personal and private to Mr. Walvekar.” SI 67 seeks a description of the projects Mr. Rajagopalan and Mr. Walvekar have worked on since July 1, 2019. Mr. Rajagopalan responded only as to what he deems “RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY.” SI 72 requests a detailed description of the present and intended business of Falconeer, and the response was merely, “Falconeer intends to pursue business in the medical software field and will not be involved in business activities relating to the RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY.”

Again, Mr. Rajagopalan defends these responses by arguing in general terms that the requested information is not relevant. But he fails to substantiate this argument. Further responses to these requests are warranted.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED in their entireties. Mr. Rajagopalan shall serve verified, code-compliant further responses to the requests (and interrogatories) at issue and produce all responsive documents in conformity therewith within 30 days of the filing of this order. His responses shall be without objection, except for any preserved objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine applicable to individual documents. Along with his responses, Defendant shall provide a privilege log identifying any documents withheld on the basis of these privileges and providing a factual basis for the privilege claimed.

The Court will prepare the order.

***

LAW AND MOTION HEARING PROCEDURES 

Remote hearings are required. If a party gives notice that a tentative ruling will be contested, any party seeking to participate in the hearing remotely should contact CourtCall. If a party wants to appear in person, please contact Rowena Walker (rwalker@) to reschedule the hearing. 

 

Public access to hearings is available on a listen-only line by calling 888-808-6929 (access code 2752612). 

 

State and local rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a court order. These rules apply while in court and also while participating in a hearing remotely or listening in on a public access line. No court order has been issued which would allow recording of any portion of this motion calendar. 

 

The court does not provide court reporters for proceedings in the complex civil litigation departments. Any party wishing to retain a court reporter to report a hearing may do so in compliance with this Court’s October 13, 2020 Policy Regarding Privately Retained Court Reporters. The court reporter may participate remotely and need not be present in the courtroom.  

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 3

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 4

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 5

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 6

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 7

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 8

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 9

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 10

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 11

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 12

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 13

Case Name:

Case No.:

- oo0oo -

-----------------------

[1] The discovery requests at issue were served on December 9, 2021.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download