Case Number: KC070224 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: O

ANALYSIS

Defendant Law Offices of Michael J. Zhang’s motion to compel further discovery responses to request for production of documents, set one is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 10 days.

CCP § 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Any 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 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010; See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

RFP Nos. 1 & 2

Plaintiff Xueying Zhai (“Plaintiff”) responded in these requests that the requests are irrelevant, vague, overbroad, and burdensome. Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally unintelligible. The answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) It is not enough that the questions will require a lot of work to answer. It must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required: It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

Defendant Law Offices of Michael Zhang (“Defendant”) contends that it seeks the requested documents because they pertain to allegations contained in the Complaint of alleged fraud.

Plaintiff contends that these documents would impose on Plaintiff an undue burden, but does not explain why, beyond the alleged duplicative nature of the requests to the special interrogatories. This is an insufficient reason to object to the production of these documents as the responses being duplicative is not an unjust burden to outweigh the significant utility of the information sought.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all non-privileged documents that are responsive to the above document requests.

Defendants Michael Jun Zhang and Law Offices of Michael J. Zhang’s motion to compel further discovery responses to special interrogatories, set one is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental responses within 10 days.

CCP § 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Any 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 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010; See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(a),(b).)

Special Interrogatory No. 24:

This interrogatory seeks information relating to documents that evidences Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Michael Zhang’s wife, Michelle, who was an employee of Defendant Michael Zhang’s firm, communicated indirectly through Steven Zhang, the alleged initiator of the fraudulent scheme.

Plaintiff Xueying Zhai (“Plaintiff”) responded to this request by objecting that that the request is unreasonably duplicative of the 136 other special interrogatories. However, Plaintiff indicated that she has already responded to this interrogatory.

Thus, motion to compel Special Interrogatory No. 24 is MOOT.

Special Interrogatories No. 37-137:

Plaintiff responded to these requests by objecting that that the requests call for “information that is more easily available to Propounding Party.”

Defendant contends that these interrogatories seek information pertaining to conduct in which Defendant did not participate or have knowledge of, and therefore, the information is not easily available to it.

Plaintiff contends, as above through its opposition to the motion to compel further production of documents, that this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and excessive. Again, this is an insufficient reason to object to the production of these documents as the responses being duplicative is not an unjust burden to outweigh the significant utility of the information sought.

Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to Special Interrogatories 37-137 without objections.