2013-00151134-CU-PO

Sacramento Municipal Utility District vs. Peter Hoang

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion to Compel 1) Admissions 2) Production

Filed By: Murphy, Aerin C.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sacramento Utility District’s (“SMUD”) motion to compel
further responses to request for admissions and request for production of documents
is ruled upon as follows.

At the outset, the court must remind both counsel that given the number of motions
such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough
judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could
have and should have been resolved informally.  That this is just such a dispute only
serves to highlight the critical need for legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-
confer efforts before filing any discovery motion.

This is an action regarding the payment for power theft against Defendant/Cross-
Complainant Nhen Hoang sued incorrectly as Peter Hoang (“Hoang” or “Defendant”).
Hoang is alleged to be an owner of property in Elk Grove, California. Hoang had the
utilities provided by SMUD listed in his name. In April 2012, Hoang entered into a one
year lease of the property with Jimmy Su.  In April 2013, the Elk Grove Police
Department contacted Hoang about allegations that Su was improperly diverting
electrical power for the purpose of cultivating marijuana plants indoors.  SMUD
discontinued providing power to the property and issued a bill for $297,884.27 to
Hoang for the alleged utility use.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Request for Admissions No. 1 – DENIED

Request: “Admit that YOU are Peter Hoang.”

Defendant’s Response: “While my name from birth is Nhen Hoang, I frequently use the
name Peter in dealing with third parties.”

The motion is DENIED. This response is sufficient.

Request for Admissions No. 14: DENIED

Request: “Admit that when YOU contacted YOUR insurance carrier on or about June
24, 2013 YOU attempted to provide plaintiff SMUD with payment for damages incurred
as a result of the present INCIDENT.”
Defendant’s Response:  “The request as phrased is vague, uncertain, ambiguous and
compound such that an intelligible response is not possible but denies this request on
that basis.”

The Court agrees with Defendant that the request is compound and as written appears
to seek two separate admissions.

Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-4, 7, 12-15, 19-20, 22, 24-26, 29-31 –
DENIED

Here, Defendant agreed to produce responsive documents to the above requests and
Defendant produced 165 pages of non-privileged, responsive documents.  Defendant
contends that he produced the documents in general categories (i.e. SMUD bills,
communications with SMUD, police report) as ordinarily kept.

SMUD objects to the manner in which the documents were produced.  SMUD argues
that Defendant has not produced the documents in an organized and labeled manner
to correspond with the categories in the demand as required by CCP §2031.280.
SMUD’s reliance on Kayne v. The Grande Holdings Limited (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th
1470 is misplaced.  In Kanye, Grande produced approximately 90,000 documents
which the propounding party described as being in “complete disorder.”  Grande
argued that it found the documents in a disordered condition and produced them to
plaintiffs in that same disordered condition.  The court ordered Grande to pay
sanctions for the cost of organizing the documents because Grande produced no
admissible evidence that Grande found the documents in a disordered condition or the
state of the documents in its possession, custody and control.  Here, however,
Defendant’s counsel, Summer Haro declares that the “documents were produced in
those general categories, as ordinarily kept, e.g. SMUD’s bills maintained together,
while bank statements are maintained together.”  (Declaration of Summer Haro, ¶ 5.)
Document production is such a manner in sufficient.

Request for Production of Documents No. 27 – GRANTED

Request: “All WRITINGS RELATED to the registration with Department of Motor
Vehicles of any and all vehicles YOU owned and/or were driving at the time of the
INCIDENT.”

Defendant’s Response:  “This request is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, is not
relevant to the subject matter this complaint and is not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Further, this request invades defendant’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.”

The Court agrees with SMUD that the request is likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence because it seeks to account for vehicles linked to the premises
where the power theft occurred including vehicles which traveled to and from the
premises and registration information found at the premises. SMUD argues that the
information may identify Defendant as the party responsible for the power theft at the
premises.

Defendant’s remaining objections lack merit.
Defendant shall serve a further verified written response, without objections, to
SMUD’s Request for Production, No. 27 by no later than June 11, 2014.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.