Case Number: BC476328 Hearing Date: August 04, 2015 Dept: 46
Case Number: BC476328
DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION VS HENRY DANPOUR ET AL
Filing Date: 01/05/2012
Case Type: Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)

08/04/2015
Henry Danpour’s Motion for Protective Order

NOTICE OF POSTING OF TENTATIVE RULING AND TELEPHONIC SUBMISSION

This tentative ruling is posted at 10:45 a.m. on 08/03/2015.

If there are no parties who have appeared in the action other than Plaintiff/Petitioner, then Plaintiff/Petitioner may submit to the tentative without appearance by telephonic notification to the clerk of Dept. 46 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on a date prior to the hearing or morning prior to the hearing by calling (213) 633-0646, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If the other parties have appeared in the action, then the parties must first confer and all agree that the tentative ruling will be the final ruling on the matter. If the parties to the matter before the court all agree, a representative of the parties may call the clerk and submit without an appearance, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If an order is required, it should be lodged directly in Dept. 46 with a copy to adverse/other parties, if any.

TENTATIVE RULING

Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,500. CCP §2030.090(d).

DISCUSSION

On 4/1/15, P filed its “Verified First Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Repayment Guaranty” (hereinafter, “FAC Supplemental”) against Danpour and DOES 1-10. On 4/13/15, Danpour filed his Second Amended X-Complaint (hereinafter, “SACC”) for (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Breach of K; (5) Breach of K—Promissory Estoppel and (6) Unfair Business Practices against P/X-D, X-Ds Dayani; Eastern Mortgage Company (hereinafter, “EMC”); Shaikin and ROES 1-30. On 5/8/15, Danpour answered the FAC Supplemental.

Danpour’s Motions seek an order limiting the number of Plaintiff’s 255 proposed Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and 184 proposed Inspection Demands, Set 2, on the basis that the subject discovery is unduly burdensome, oppressive, unreasonably duplicative and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

On 4/27/15, the subject discovery was served. (Motion, Exhibits “A” & “B”). On 5/29/15, Danpour’s counsel obtained an extension. (Id., Exhibit “C”).

“Where a party must resort to the courts, ‘the burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. [Citation.]’ (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 C.4th 245, 255).” Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 C.A.4th 261, 219. “’The concept of good cause … calls for a factual exposition of a reasonable ground for the sought order.’ (Waters v. Superior Court (1962) 58 C.2d 885, 893; Carlson v. Superior Court [(1961)] 56 C.2d 431, 440).” Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 C.A.2d 807, 819. Even then, a protective order is only appropriate when the court “determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP § 2017.020(a).

Danpour did not sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing this instant motion. On 5/29/15, Danpour’s counsel requested a 30- or 15-day extension; in the alternative, he requested that the discovery be deferred until after P’s demurrer to the SACC was heard in late September 2015. Although Danpour’s counsel asked if the discovery could be limited due to the volume involved, he did not suggest or propose any particular limitation. He also advised that he did not need additional time to respond to P’s concurrently propounded RFAs or Form Interrogatories, Set 3. P’s counsel provided Danpour’s counsel with a 2 week extension that same day and advised, “[w]e can discuss when I return.” (Opposition, Exhibit “1”). [It should be noted that P’s counsel was on vacation as of 5/29/15 and returned 6/5/15]. On 6/6/15, P’s counsel emailed Danpour’s counsel after having reviewed Danpours’ objections to the RFAs and partial responses to the form interrogatories. Said e-mail states, in pertinent part, as follows:

“[L]et me discuss your request to defer responses to the discovery
on the Set of Special Interrogatories and Requests for production
of documents because of the pending demurrers. The hearing on
the Demurrer is not until September 24 and Dayco is not going to
agree that there will be an extension until after that hearing and
thereby do nothing in this case…[s]o we will expect and demand
full and complete responses to the discovery. If you want to
discuss some procedure to seal with this discovery because of the
amount of discovery then I am open to doing so but the documents
and Answers to Interrogatories are expected. For example, if there
is an Answer to an interrogatory or a response to a document
request where the response or documents are the same then I am
not going to make you reprint the response or answer so long as it
is clear that they are the same. By way of example, you can state in
response to Interrogatories numbers 1-23, 47, 52, etc if the response
is the same then that is acceptable. If you want to discuss such
responses then please advise me when you are available to do so
this coming week…” (Opposition, Exhibit “2”).

There is no evidence that Danpour’s counsel responded to any of P’s counsel’s subsequent attempts to communicate with him on this discovery. (See Opposition, Exhibit “3”).
Danpour has not met his “good cause” burden. As P states, “[t]he interrogatories ask only for three categories of answers with respect to each and every allegation in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint: • All facts regarding allegations set forth in each paragraph of the Second Amended Cross-Complaint; • The name, address, and telephone number of the persons who were witnesses to or have knowledge of those allegations; • All writings evidencing the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.” (Opposition, 5:18-26). Danpour merely takes issue with the number of interrogatories and document production requests; he does not, however, provide opposing counsel or this court with a proposal regarding how the subject discovery should be limited/reduced.

P’s request for $3,825.00 in sanctions (6 hrs. preparing opposition + 3 hrs. reviewing reply & attending hearing @ $425/hr.] is to $1,500.00 based upon a reasonable fee for this type of motion at, $375/hr. and for a total of a 4 hours.