Case Name: Anupam Sahai v. Aegify, Inc.
Case No.: 2018-CV-327834

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents by Plaintiff Anupam Sahai and Request for Monetary Sanctions by Defendant Aegify, Inc.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an action for unpaid wages. In August 2009, plaintiff Anupam Sahai (“Plaintiff”), Chandra Bilugu, and Sayi Tigadi co-founded eGestalt Technologies, Inc. (“eGestalt”), a California corporation. (Second Amended Complaint [“SAC”] at ¶ 8.) In December 2012, the founders of eGestalt created a shell entity, eGestalt Technologies, a Delaware corporation (“eGestalt-Del”). (Id. at ¶ 9.) All ownership interests in eGestalt were transferred to eGestalt-Del in exchange for ownership interests in eGestalt-Del. (Id. at ¶ 10.) In March 2015, eGestalt-Del was renamed to Aegify, Inc. (“Aegify”). (Id. at ¶ 11.)

On February 1, 2019, Aegify made an offer of employment to Plaintiff which was accepted and entitled him to $16,666.70 per month in salary. (SAC at ¶¶ 14-15.) However, in November 2011, Aegify allegedly stopped paying Plaintiff’s monthly salary in full. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Instead, Aegify began deferring Plaintiff’s salary and held these unpaid amounts on its books as owed but unpaid salary. (Ibid.) Aegify terminated Plaintiff’s employment on July 11, 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 25, 30.) Aegify allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the wages due to him at the time of his termination or any time thereafter. (Id. at ¶ 46.)

On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC against Aegify alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) failure to pay wages at termination, Cal. Labor Code, § 203; (3) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200; and (4) common counts.

Discovery Dispute

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff served defendant Aegify with special interrogatories (set one) (“SI”), form interrogatories (set one) (“FI”), requests for admission (set one) (“RFA”), and requests for production of documents (set one) (“RPD”). (Adrian Decl. at ¶ 2, Exs. A-D.) Aegify served discovery responses interposing objections with factual answers. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exs. E-H.)

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel claiming the discovery responses were inadequate and the objections were meritless. (Adrian Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. I.) Plaintiff did not receive any response to the meet and confer letter and thus the partiers have been unable to informally resolve this discovery dispute. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff therefore seeks intervention from the Court.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SI, FI, RFA, and RPD. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290.) Defendant Aegify filed written opposition and requests an award of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff filed reply papers. No trial date has been set.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to SI

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to SI Nos. 2-6, 10-13, 17-21, 23-24, 26-29, and 32-38 because the answers are inadequate and the objections are meritless.

Legal Standard

A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward…to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) If a timely motion to compel answers is filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221 (Coy).)

SI No. 2

SI No. 2 asks defendant Aegify to describe its business relationship with eGestalt. Aegify objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. (See Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection]; see also Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting discovery].)

Defendant Aegify also provides the following factual response: “Sahai registered DETI.” This response appears to be evasive. In opposition, defendant Aegify admits there is no business relationship between the entities. (See OPP at p. 3.) If that is the case, Aegify should so state in an objection free code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 2 is GRANTED.

SI No. 3

SI No. 3 asks Aegify to identify all of the locations where it conducts business or conducted business from January 2010 to the present. Defendant Aegify identifies an address in Delaware which is the location of its registered agent for service of process. This response is inadequate as the address of a company’s registered agent for service of process is not where that company conducts business. If Aegify does not have a business address, as it appears to claim in opposition, it should so state in a code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 3 is GRANTED.
SI Nos. 4-5

In reply, Plaintiff states he received amended responses to SI Nos. 4-5. (See Reply at p. 2; Chuang Decl. at Ex. A.) Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 4-5 is MOOT.

SI No. 6

SI No. 6 asks Aegify to summarize how it was capitalized upon its incorporation. In doing so, Aegify must identify each person or entity who purchased or subscribed to stock in Aegify, the number of shares purchased or subscribed by each person or entity, the amount paid or promised for such shares, and the date of each payment.

No objections were raised but defendant Aegify did provide the following response: “Sahai opened an account for DETI in Delaware. All parties had the intent to capitalize DETI Sahai never followed through, and no money was put into the account.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 5.) This answer is evasive and fails to provide all of the information requested by the interrogatory. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 6 is GRANTED.

SI No. 10

SI No. 10 asks Aegify to identify each person, excluding employees, who provided services to Aegify from January 2010 to the present, including the positions held and the applicable dates. Aegify objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. These objections do not appear to be well-taken and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, Aegify responds that “no persons have provided services to DETI.” This answer is sufficient and no further response is required. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not basis for compelling a further response.
Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 10 is DENIED.

SI No. 11

SI No. 11 asks Aegify to identify each person, excluding employees, with whom Aegify had a contract for services at any time from January 2010 to the present, including the positions held and the applicable dates. Aegify objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. These objections do not appear to be well-taken and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, Aegify responds that “no persons have a contract with DETI.” This answer is sufficient and no further response is required. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not basis for compelling a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 11 is DENIED.

SI No. 12

SI No. 12 asks, for each person identified in response to SI No. 11, that Aegify identify each contract between that person and Aegify. The response to SI No. 12 is the same as SI No. 11. Therefore, for reasons stated above, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 12 is DENIED.

SI No. 13

SI No. 13 asks Aegify to identify all of its bank accounts. For purposes of this interrogatory, “Identify,” when referring to a bank account or accounts, means the financial institution, the account number, the date the account was opened, the date the account was closed, if applicable, and the identity of each person authorized to sign checks or access the account on your behalf.

Defendant Aegify objects on grounds the interrogatory is overbroad and violates privacy rights with respect to financial information. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled. Aegify objects on grounds that the term “Identify” is vague and ambiguous. These objections are meritless as Plaintiff has specifically defined this term with respect to this interrogatory. Aegify further objects on the ground that this interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060. Aegify however did not object to SI No. 13 on this ground in its original response and, thus, such an objection raised for the first time in opposition to this motion is waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 [waiver occurs where the responding party fails to timely raise an objection in its initial response].)

Aegify also provides a factual response stating it opened an account with Citibank in Sunnyvale. The response however is incomplete as it fails to answer the interrogatory in its entirety. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to an objection free code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 13 is GRANTED.

SI Nos. 17-18

SI No. 17 asks Aegify to identify all agreements or contracts it has with Plaintiff. Similarly, SI No. 18 asks Aegify to identify all documents referring to or relating to any agreement it has with Plaintiff.

In response, Aegify states that it elects to exercise its option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 to answer these interrogatories. In order to utilize this method, Aegify must show that a compilation, abstract, audit or summary is necessary in order to answer the interrogatory, that no such compilation, abstract, audit or summary exists, and that the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the interrogating party as for the responding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) Moreover, Aegify must describe the records from which the compilation or summary can be made with sufficient particularity so that they can be easily located. (Ibid.) Aegify did not meet any of the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, so this response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, further responses to SI Nos. 17-18 are warranted.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 17-18 is GRANTED.

SI No. 19

SI No. 19 asks Aegify to identify all persons with knowledge of any agreement it has with Plaintiff. The objections that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous are overruled. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 [“[W]here the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.”].) Aegify’s objection on the ground that the interrogatory is overbroad however appears to be well-taken as the question is not limited by time or subject matter. For that reason, any response may elicit the identities of individuals who have knowledge of agreements which may not be relevant to issues raised in this lawsuit. The Court therefore sustains the objection on this ground.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 19 is DENIED.

SI No. 20

SI No. 20 asks Aegify to describe any services it requested from Plaintiff between January 2010 and December 2016. Defendant Aegify objects on grounds the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and nonsensical. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Defendant Aegify also provides the following factual response: “Sahai made any such requests of himself.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 14.) This answer is evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to an objection free code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 20 is GRANTED.

SI No. 21

SI No. 21 asks Aegify to identify all documents referring or relating to any services it requested from Plaintiff between January 2010 and December 2016. Defendant Aegify objects on grounds the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and nonsensical. These objections are meritless and thus the objections are overruled.

Defendant Aegify also provides the following factual response: “Sahai made any such requests of himself. If Sahai documented any requests he made of himself, Responding Party does not possess those documents.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 15.) This answer is evasive and non-responsive. If Aegify is aware of documents, it must identify those documents. If Aegify cannot identify any documents, it should so state in an objection free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 21 is GRANTED.

SI No. 23

SI No. 23 asks Aegify to describe any services that Plaintiff provided to Aegify between January 2010 and December 2016. The response and objections are the same as those raised to SI No. 20. Thus, for reasons stated above, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 23 is GRANTED.

SI No. 24

SI No. 24 asks Aegify to identify all documents referring or relating to any services Plaintiff provided to Aegify between January 2010 and December 2016. The response and objections are almost identical to those raised to SI No. 21. Thus, for reasons stated above, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 24 is GRANTED.

SI No. 26

SI No. 26 asks Aegify to identify all payments that it made to Plaintiff from January 2010 to the present. Defendant Aegify objects to the interrogatory on grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, nonsensical and violates its right to privacy with respect to financial information. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, defendant Aegify provides a factual response stating that it made no payments to Plaintiff from January 2010 to the present. This answer is sufficient and thus no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 26 is DENIED.

SI No. 27

SI No. 27 asks Aegify to identify all documents referring or relating to payments it made to Plaintiff from January 2010 to the present. Defendant Aegify objects to the interrogatory on grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, nonsensical and violates its right to privacy with respect to financial information. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, defendant Aegify provides a factual response stating that it made a thorough search and did not find any records of any payments that it made to Plaintiff. This answer is sufficient and thus no further response is required.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 27 is DENIED.

SI No. 28

SI No. 28 asks Aegify to identify all persons with knowledge of payments that it made to Plaintiff from January 2010 to the present. The response and objections are the same as those raised to SI No. 26. Therefore, for reasons stated above, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 28 is DENIED.

SI No. 29

SI No. 29 asks Aegify to describe the manner in which it terminated Plaintiff’s employment, including the date the relationship was terminated. Aegify objects on the ground the interrogatory violates its right to privacy with respect to financial information. This objection is not justified in opposition and thus the objection is overruled.

Without waiving objections, Aegify provides the following factual response: “A shareholder meeting was called by Chandra Sekhar Bilugu and held on July 11, 2016. Sahai did not attend. At the meeting, Sahai was terminated as CEO of DETI.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 23.) This answer is sufficient and thus no further response is required. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 29 is DENIED.

SI No. 32

SI No. 32 asks Aegify to identify all wages that it paid to Plaintiff upon the termination of his employment. Defendant Aegify did not object but provides the following factual response: “Sahai provided no documentation or information that DETI owed any wages to Sahai. As Sahai controlled all financial aspects of DETI, without Sahai’s input and records indicating any funds were owed by DETI, no such funds were paid.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 24.) This response is evasive as Defendant is asked simply whether it paid wages to Plaintiff or not. In fact, with respect to SI No. 33, defendant Aegify, in a related question, answers that it did not pay wages to Plaintiff upon the termination of his employment. If that is the case, defendant Aegify should so state in a code compliant further response to SI No. 32.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 32 is GRANTED.

SI No. 33

SI No. 33 asks Aegify to identify all documents referring or relating to wages it paid to Plaintiff upon termination of his employment. Defendant Aegify did not object but provides a factual response stating it did not pay or owe wages to Plaintiff upon termination of his employment. Plaintiff argues the response should be clarified to state that Aegify did not pay wages upon his termination. (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 25.) This argument lacks merit as Aegify has done exactly that with its response and thus no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 33 is DENIED.

SI No. 34

SI No. 34 asks Aegify to identify all persons with knowledge of wages it paid to Plaintiff upon the termination of his employment. No objections were raised. Defendant Aegify instead provides the following factual response: “Anupam Sahai. Sahai was in charge of payroll until termination of his employment.” (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 26.) This answer is sufficient and thus no further response is required. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 34 is DENIED.

SI No. 35

SI No. 35 asks Aegify to state all facts in support of its contention that it was not obligated to pay Plaintiff’s wages at the time of his termination. No objections were raised. Defendant Aegify provides a factual response stating that it had no employment agreement with Plaintiff, never paid him wages, and was unaware of any work Plaintiff performed for Aegify. (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 27.) Such a response is sufficient and thus no further response is necessary. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the response is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 35 is DENIED.

SI Nos. 36-38

SI Nos. 36-38 ask Aegify to identify documents relating to a record of Plaintiff’s salary or wages. In response, Aegify states that it elects to exercise its option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 to answer these interrogatories. For the reasons stated above with respect to SI Nos. 17-18, this response is not code compliant and thus Plaintiff is entitled to a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 36-38 is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to FI Nos. 3.1, 9.1, 12.3, 12.6, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, and 50.5 because the answers are incomplete and the objections are meritless.

FI No. 3.1

FI No. 3.1 and related subparts ask Aegify about its status as a corporation and whether it is qualified to do business in California. No objections were raised. Defendant Aegify provides factual responses to subparts (a) through (e). In particular, subpart (e) asks whether Aegify is qualified to do business in California. This is a yes or no question. Aegify nevertheless responds stating that eGestalt is entitled to do business in California. (See Sep. Stmt. at p. 31.) This is non-responsive and thus Plaintiff is entitled to a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 3.1 is GRANTED.

FI No. 9.1

FI No. 9.1 and related subparts ask Aegify whether there are any damages attributable to the incident.

Defendant Aegify objects to the term “incident” as being vague and unintelligible as it is not separately defined by Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff relies upon the definition supplied by the Judicial Council form which defines “incident” as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” While this is not an accident or personal injury case, the operative pleading does allege a claim for breach of contract on the ground that defendant Aegify allegedly failed to pay wages to Plaintiff. Thus, the alleged failure by defendant to pay wages to Plaintiff would likely constitute the incident. In addition, FI No. 12.3 incorporates the term “incident” and Aegify fully responded to that interrogatory along with its subparts. (See Sep. Stmt. at pp. 34-35.) Therefore, the term “incident” is not so vague and ambiguous that defendant Aegify cannot provide a proper response. Thus, the objection is overruled.

Defendant Aegify also provides a factual response but does so defining the term “incident” under its own interpretation which is improper. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 9.1 is GRANTED.

FI No. 12.3

FI No. 12.3 asks Aegify if it has obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the incident. The interrogatory also includes subparts (a) through (d) requesting additional information regarding each statement.

Defendant Aegify objects to the interrogatory on the ground that the term “incident” is vague. The Court considered this objection in addressing FI No. 9.1. For reasons stated above, the objection is overruled.

Without waiving objection, Aegify provides factual responses for subparts (a) through (d). As a preliminary matter, defendant did not answer yes or no to the initial question as to whether it obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the incident. Also, subpart (a) asks for contact information regarding the individual from whom the statement was obtained. Subpart (b) asks for contact information of the individual who obtained the statement. Strangely, for both subparts (a) and (b), defendant Aegify provided the same name and contact information which is nonsensical. Aegify fails to address its deficient factual response in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an objection free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 12.3 is GRANTED.

FI No. 12.6

In reply, Plaintiff states he received an amended responses to FI No. 12.6. (See Reply at p. 8; Chuang Decl. at Ex. A.) Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 12.6 is MOOT.

FI No. 17.1

FI No. 17.1 asks Aegify to state for each of its responses to the RFA that were not an unqualified admission: (a) the number of the request; (b) all facts upon which the response is based; (c) all persons with knowledge of those facts and their contact information; and (d) all supporting documents and the name of each person possessing such documents and their contact information.

Defendant Aegify responds in part by stating that it elects to exercise its option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210. For the reasons stated above, Aegify did not meet any of the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, so this response is not code-compliant. In addition, the interrogatory requires a responding party to identify the request, state supporting facts, identify witnesses and identify documents for each RFA. While Aegify does identify individuals and their contact information along with the RFA, it fails to organize its answer by responding to subparts (a) through (d) as provided in the interrogatory. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 is GRANTED.

FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.5

FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, and 50.5 request information regarding contracts alleged in the pleading. No objections have been raised. Defendant Aegify responds to these interrogatories by stating it did not have a written employment agreement with Plaintiff, which is the only contract alleged in the pleading. This response is sufficient and Plaintiff cannot compel a further response simply because he disagrees with the answer.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, and 50.5 is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFA

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 3, 15 and 21 because the answers are inadequate.

Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

RFA No. 3

RFA No. 3 asks Aegify to admit or deny whether it conducts business in California through e-Gestalt. No objection has been raised. Defendant Aegify denies the RFA which constitutes an appropriate response. To the extent that Plaintiff claims this response conflicts with FI No. 17.1, defendant Aegify will have an opportunity to amend its response to that interrogatory in accordance with this Order.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 3 is DENIED.

RFA No. 15

RFA No. 15 asks Aegify to admit or deny that it paid no salary to Plaintiff from May 2012 through June 2016. In opposition, defendant Aegify concedes it is willing to amend its response to indicate that it should have been admitted. (See OPP at p. 8.)

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 15 is GRANTED.

RFA No. 21

In reply, Plaintiff states he received an amended responses to RFA No. 21. (See Reply at p. 9; Chuang Decl. at Ex. A.) Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 21 is MOOT.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPD

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 6, 9, 12, and 13 because the responses are inadequate and the objections are meritless.

Legal Standard

A responding party to an inspection demand must respond separately to each item in the demand by stating one of the following: (1) an agreement to comply; (2) a representation of inability to comply, or (3) objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) If a party demanding a response to an inspection demand deems: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310-320; Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group 2018) at § 8:1495.)

RPD No. 6

A motion to compel further responses to RPD must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The moving party establishes good cause by showing: (1) relevance to the subject matter of the case; and (2) specific facts justifying discovery. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance].) Discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged and relevant to the subject matter, and a matter is relevant if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Moreover, for discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

RPD No. 6 seeks production of all documents demonstrating a corporate relationship between eGestalt, including but not limited to corporate handbooks and memoranda demonstrating corporate structure. Plaintiff argues such documents are relevant to its claim that the two companies are alter egos, have the same founders, and operate under the name Aegify. Having shown good cause for production, the burden shifts to defendant Aegify to justify its objections.

Aegify objects in part on grounds that the request is overbroad, violates attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and seeks confidential, proprietary information or trade secrets. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Aegify also objects on the ground that the phrase “corporate relationship” is vague and ambiguous. This objection lacks merit and is also overruled.
Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 6 is GRANTED.

RPD Nos. 9, 12, 13

RPD No. 9 seeks all documents referring or relating to Plaintiff’s duties in his position or positions at Aegify. RPD No. 12 seeks all documents and communications between Plaintiff and Aegify referring or relating to payment of Plaintiff’s salary. RPD No. 13 seeks all documents and communications between Plaintiff and Aegify referring or relating to deferral of Plaintiff’s salary.

With respect to RPD No. 9, Plaintiff does not provide any good cause for production. On that basis alone, the motion is denied as to RPD No. 9. As to RPD Nos. 12 and 13, there appears to be good cause for production as documents and communications related to Plaintiff’s salary address key issues in this lawsuit.

Aegify objects on grounds the requests are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, violate attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and seek confidential, proprietary information or trade secrets. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, defendant Aegify states it has conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry and has no responsive documents in its possession. This factual response is sufficient and the fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the answer is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 9, 12, and 13 is DENIED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Defendant Aegify requests an award of monetary sanctions in opposition to the motion to compel. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, requests for admissions, or inspection demands, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2033.290, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Based on the outcome of the motion, the Court is not inclined to award monetary sanctions. Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 36, 37, and 38 is GRANTED. Defendant Aegify shall serve Plaintiff with verified code compliant further responses, without objections, within 20 calendar days of service of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 10, 11, 12, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, and 35 is DENIED.

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 4 and 5 is MOOT.

The motion to compel a further response to FI Nos. 3.1, 9.1, 12.3, and 17.1 is GRANTED. Defendant Aegify shall serve Plaintiff with verified code compliant further responses, without objections, within 20 calendar days of service of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to FI Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, and 50.5 is DENIED.

The motion to compel a further response to FI No. 12.6 is MOOT.

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 15 is GRANTED. Defendant Aegify shall serve Plaintiff with a verified code compliant further response, without objections, within 20 calendar days of service of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 3 is DENIED.

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 21 is MOOT.

The motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 6 is GRANTED. Defendant Aegify shall serve Plaintiff with a verified code compliant further response, without objections, and produce all responsive documents within 20 calendar days of service of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 9, 12, and 13 is DENIED.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the Order.