Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

34-2012-00129851

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order Sealing Record

Filed By: Robson, Craig

The motion of Plaintiff Inszone Insurance Services, Inc. d/b/a Proven Insurance Services (“Inszone”) to seal Exhibits B and C to the Motion for Summary Judgment
brought by Defendant Associated Brokers, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Interstate Insurance
Brokers (“PIIB”) is GRANTED.

This is a trade secret case. The operative second amended complaint contains a
cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets under CC §§ 3426 et seq. There
is a protective order in place to limit the dissemination of assertedly confidential
information.

With its motion for summary judgment originally set for hearing on May 7, 2014 (since
continued to July 8, 2014), PIIB lodged conditionally under seal its Exhibits B and C.
Exhibit B is Inszone’s Identification of Trade Secrets pursuant to CCP § 2019.210, and
Exhibit C contains excerpts from the confidential portion of Joseph Bertolino’s
deposition. PIIB’s notice of lodgment contains an advisement that the exhibits would
be placed in the court’s public files unless Inszone timely applied or moved to seal
pursuant to CRC 2.551(b)(3). Inszone did not timely file such a motion or application.
As a consequence, PIIB sent a letter to the clerk of the court indicating that the exhibits
needed to be made public. Inszone then applied ex parte for an order sealing the
records, which the court placed on its calendar for hearing on April 25, 2014.

In its ruling of 04/25/14, the court determined that, notwithstanding Inszone’s failure
timely to apply or move to seal PIIB’s Exhibits B and C under the Rules of Court, at
least part of the information in the two exhibits would be sealed because the court had
previously ordered that information sealed, albeit in the context of another motion. The
Rules of Court do not require a party that has successfully moved to seal confidential
information to bring successive motions to seal the same information each time an
opposing party wishes to place the information before the court. Because the extent to
which the information in PIIB’s Exhibits B and C overlapped with information previously
ordered sealed was unclear, the court ordered counsel to meet and confer and
determine the extent of overlap.

After meeting and conferring, counsel determined that most of the information in
Exhibits B and C to PIIB’s MSJ was previously ordered sealed. Thus, the court will not
allow this information to made public simply because Inszone did not move at an
earlier time to seal it for a second time.

However, a dispute remains as to whether a number of customer names in Exhibits B
and C–which were not previously ordered sealed–should be made public. In the
parties’ Joint Report filed on May 19, 2014, PIIB argued that Inszone has not treated
these names as trade secrets and has not sought the greatest protection against their
disclosure. (See Joint Report at 6:26-28 [“Plaintiff’s counsel then proceeded [at the
Bertolino deposition] to read many of the customer names identified in Exhibit B into
the record in the presence of the witnesses without designating that portion of the
transcript as Attorneys’ Eye Only”] [bracketed material added].) Because Inszone did
not respond to this argument in its portion of the Joint Report, the court continued the
hearing to today’s date so that Inszone could submit a response.

In its most recent brief, Inszone argues that the court is required to seal the disputed
customer names because they are trade secrets at issue in the context of a statutory
trade secret case. As Inszone observes, CC § 3426.5 obligates the court to take
reasonable steps to “preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret” in an action
brought under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act codified at CC §§ 3426 et seq. This is such an action. Hence, whether the disputed customer names should be sealed from
public view depends on whether Inszone alleged them to be trade secrets.

In the SAC, Inszone has alleged that its client lists are trade secrets that have been
safeguarded in confidence. (SAC, ¶¶ 11-12.) For purposes of the instant motion,
these allegations suffice to cover the customer names currently at issue. As a result,
the court will order PIIB’s Exhibits B and C in support of its pending MSJ sealed from
public view. The fact that Inszone designated these names as confidential but did to
designate them for attorneys’ eyes only status does not alter the court’s conclusion
that an order sealing them from public view is appropriate to preserve their secrecy
until this case reaches disposition.

PIIB’s request for judicial notice filed with its Reply dated June 5, 2014 is GRANTED.

The court notes that PIIB lodged under seal unredacted copies of its Exhibits B and C.
PIIB is directed to retrieve these unredacted copies from the Department 54 Clerk.
PIIB is further directed to lodged under seal a complete copy of all its exhibits,
including unredacted versions of Exhibits B and C. The clerk of the court will then file
this complete copy under seal. The court does not seal discrete exhibits set apart from
the document in which they appear.

PIIB is also directed to retrieve from the Department 54 Clerk its two lodged copies of
the [Proposed] Revised Exhibit B, received by the court on May 19, 2014. The court
will not file these documents. The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate as moot
the 07/28/14 hearing on Inszone’s motion to seal Revised Exhibit B.

Item 16 34-2012-00129851

Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Michelman, Sanford L.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is
requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery
requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that
pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and
motion matters. ***

Plaintiff Inszone Insurance Services, Inc. dba Proven Insurance Services, Inc.’s
(“Proven”) motion to compel defendant Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. dba Pacific
Interstate Insurance Brokers’ (“PIIB”) further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 is
GRANTED as to Request for Admission No. 29 but DENIED as to the remainder, as
follows.

Although the notice of motion provided notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D), the notice does not comply with that rule. Moving
counsel is directed to review the Local Rules, effective 1/1/2013.

At the outset, the Court must remind both counsel but especially moving 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. This
serves to highlight the critical need for counsel’s legitimate, reasonable and good faith
meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a
motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v.
Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet
-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it
“requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

Most troubling here is that the discovery issues sought by plaintiff to be resolved here
could have and should have been resolved via the meet-and-confer process but for
unknown reasons, moving counsel waited virtually until the eve of the expiration of the
deadline to file this motion in order to commence the meet-and-confer process. This
dilatory behavior cannot be condoned and may in the future lead to the outright denial
of a motion to compel which could have and should have been resolved informally.
Nevertheless, at the expense of other matters on this crowded docket, the Court now
reluctantly addresses a relatively basic discovery dispute.

According to its opposition and its discovery responses, PIIB is a “cluster” of insurance
brokers (including Bertolino) who sell insurance from several insurers. These insurers
pay commissions for selling their products, with those commissions typically being sent
to PIIB for ultimate distribution to the appropriate broker which actually placed the
insurance with the insured. It is worth noting that PIIB maintains that it does not itself
either sell any insurance or earn any commissions for the sale of insurance policies.

By this motion, Proven seeks PIIB’s further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 as it
relates to Request for Admission Nos. 3-16, 18-21, 24-27, 29-39, 41-44, 46-57, 60-61
and 66-68.

PIIB opposes the motion on various grounds but primarily that plaintiff failed to
properly meet-and-confer with respect all but one of the requests for admission (i.e.,
No. 29); PIIB provided full, complete responses to each of this interrogatory and that
Proven has failed to identify any legitimate basis for seeking further responses.

As noted above, plaintiff for unknown reasons waited virtually until the eve of the
expiration of the deadline to file this motion in order to commence the meet-and-confer
process. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter dated 12/3/2013
which demanded further responses by 12/5/2013, an unreasonable demand which all
but precluded the type of meet-and-confer required by Townsend v. Superior Court.
Regardless, with respect to form interrogatory 17.1, the 12/3/2013 meet-and-confer
letter focused nearly exclusively on PIIB’s response relative to Request for Admission
No. 29 and identified two (2) potential problems with PIIB’s response:

Defendants [sic] Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories 17.1:
Plaintiff’s [sic] supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, in numerous
places, and by way of example at page 12-13 at Request for Admission No. 29
states:

“…As can be seen by the Producer Payable statements concurrently
herewith (PIIB 000029- PIIB 000032) the policies identified therein were
cancelled, and thus no commissions were earned or received from such
policies…. With respect to the other customers to who Bertolino sold
insurance through Defendant’s companies… and who are not identified
within the Producer Payable statements produced herewith… such
policies are, and have at all relevant time been, inactive.”

This response is unclear. At numerous places throughout Defendant’s
Supplemental Responses, Defendant states that it does not receive
“commissions.” (See, page 9 of Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to
Request for Admissions). However, page 12-13 at Request for Admission No.
29 indicated that Defendant does receive commissions. Please clarify this.

Although the letter asserts that the language quoted by plaintiff in its letter appears “in
numerous places” in PIIB’s responses to Form Interrogatories, it appears in response
to interrogatory 17.1 only once, in connection with Request for Admission No. 29.
Thus, aside from that portion of the meet-and-confer letter which demanded the
production of PIIB’s “accounting information related to all business written by
Defendant Bertolino…from April 2012 to current,” the Court agrees with PIIB that the
exceedingly narrow scope of plaintiff’s own last minute meet-and-confer efforts
effectively precludes the granting of this motion to compel as it relates to all Requests
for Admissions except No. 29.

However, inasmuch as plaintiff is merely seeking clarification of PIIB’s response to
interrogatory 17.1 with respect to Request for Admission No. 29, the motion to compel
is granted.

PIIB shall provide a verified further response, without additional objections, to plaintiff’s
form interrogatory relative to only Request for Admission No. 29 no later than
6/30/2014.

Since the bulk of plaintiff’s motion was unsuccessful and was not substantially justified
under the circumstances, PIIB is awarded monetary sanctions from plaintiff and its
counsel in the amount of $750 representing three (3) hours of attorney time at a
reasonable hourly rate of $250. Sanctions to be paid no later than 7/16/2014 and if not
paid by that date, defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order
granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland
v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 17 34-2012-00129851

Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Michelman, Sanford L.

Plaintiff Inszone Insurance Services, Inc. dba Proven Insurance Services, Inc.’s
(“Proven”) motion to compel defendant Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. dba Pacific
Interstate Insurance Brokers’ (“PIIB”) further responses to requests for production, set
one, is DENIED, as follows.

In this action, plaintiff Proven alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair business
practices against various defendants. Proven sells insurance products and defendant
Lofrano previously served as one of Proven’s producers, having also worked several
years for Proven’s own predecessor. In connection with his work for Proven, Lofrano
executed documents meant to protect the confidentiality of Proven’s client information
and other proprietary information. In or about April 2012, Lofrano joined defendant
Bertolino Insurance Agency (“Bertolino”) and thereafter allegedly disclosed and/or
used without Proven’s permission its confidential client information in violation of
Lofrano’s confidentiality agreement. According to its opposition and its discovery responses, PIIB is a “cluster” of insurance
brokers (including Bertolino) who sell insurance from several insurers. These insurers
pay commissions for selling their products, with those commissions typically being sent
to PIIB for ultimate distribution to the appropriate broker which actually placed the
insurance with the insured. It is worth noting that PIIB maintains that it does not itself
either sell any insurance or earn any commissions for the sale of insurance policies.

By this motion, Proven seeks PIIB’s further responses to requests for production, set
one, Nos. 5-8, 19-21 and 38-39. PIIB opposes the motion on various grounds
including that PIIB provided full, complete responses to each of these requests, that
Proven has failed to identify any legitimate basis for seeking further responses and
that Proven has failed to carry its burden under Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)
(1).

Under Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1), a party moving to compel a further
response must “set forth specific facts showing good cause” justifying the discovery
sought by the documents requests. Neither the declaration nor the separate statement
filed by Proven in support of this motion contains any “specific facts” which tend to
show “good cause.” In fact, Proven’s moving papers nowhere even acknowledge this
burden under §2031.310(b)(1). Instead, Proven’s moving declaration does little more
than authenticate the documents attached thereto (e.g., the underlying discovery
requests, PIIB’s responses and the parties’ meet-and-confer correspondence) and to
the extent the crux of this discovery is an attempt to prove PIIB misappropriated
Proven’s trade secrets, Proven does not even include with its moving papers any of
the “documents” it repeatedly cites as “proof” of misappropriation and justification for
the discovery requests at issue here. Paragraph 11 of the Robson Declaration merely
asserts without any foundation:

“The documents which were Bates Stamped, PIIB 00028-00032, contain parts
of Proven’s Trade Secrets/client list. I was able to make this determination by
reviewing Proven’ Trade Secrets/client list in comparison with the list of
customers provided by PIIB. PIIB identified these documents as Confidential-
Attorneys’ Eyes only pursuant to the’ protective order in effect in this case.”

Thus, Proven’s own moving papers have failed to “set forth specific facts showing
good cause” for the discovery of the requested documents as explicitly required by
§2031.310(b)(1). As this cannot be considered a mere “technical defect” which can be
glossed over, the Court must on this basis alone deny the entirety of Proven’s motion.
Moreover, without the documents Proven contends justify its discovery requests (i.e.,
PIIB 00028-00032), the Court cannot for itself assess whether the discovery requests
are warranted in this case. For this reason as well, the motion to compel must be
denied.

Regardless of the foregoing, Proven’s motion to compel must be denied for still other
reasons which will now be discussed.

Request No. 5 asks PIIB to produce all “DOCUMENT[S] that SUPPORT, REFER,
REFLECT and/or EVIDENCE commissions received by YOU for policies written by
BERTOLINO.”

PIIB’s supplemental response included several objections, including that the request is vague and ambiguous as to a number of the terms used by Proven (i.e., “SUPPORT,
REFER, REFLECT and/or EVIDENCE,” “commissions received,” and “for policies
written”); seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence since the request seeks information outside
the scope of Proven’s own trade secret designation; seeks information which is PIIB’s
own trade secrets; and seeks the private information of third-parties. The Court finds
that these objections have merit and alone, could have justified PIIB’s complete refusal
to provide any substantive response at all. In particular, this request is overly broad
and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence bearing on Proven’s
misappropriation claim since the request is not limited to commissions received on
account of policies sold to Proven’s former clients, which would be the only ones
relevant to Proven’s misappropriation claim. Certainly, Proven has no legitimate
justification for seeking documents relating to the amount of commissions based on
policies sold to clients “properly” developed by Bertolino. Because this request is not
reasonably calculated to obtain only potentially relevant and discoverable information,
PIIB’s objections are sustained.

Nevertheless, PIIB did provide a substantive response to Request No. 5, stating that
PIIB “made a diligent search and is unable to comply with this request because, to the
best of its knowledge, responsive documents do not exist and never have existed.”
PIIB further explained that it does not earn or receive any commissions for policies
written by Bertolino, which alone receives all commissions for policies Bertolino writes.
The Court finds that this response complies with the requirements of Code of Civil
Procedure §2031.230 and thus, there appears to be no legitimate ground for Proven’s
motion to compel a further response. Proven’s unsupported contention that PIIB’s
response is “untrue” is not a valid basis for compelling a further response pursuant to
§2031.310. Instead, Proven’s remedy is to use this “untruth” to impeach PIIB and/or to
preclude PIIB from introducing contradictory evidence at trial.

Request No. 6 seeks all “DOCUMENT[S] in YOUR possession that SUPPORT,
REFER, REFLECT and/or EVIDENCE any COMMUNICATION between YOU and
BERTOLINO regarding PROVEN.” PIIB asserted the same objections as in response
to Request No. 5 plus additional objections based on the attorney-client privilege, work
product doctrine and Evidence Code §1152. Regardless, PIIB responded by stating
PIIB “made a diligent search and is unable to comply with this request because, to the
best of its knowledge, responsive documents do not exist and never have existed.”
Since this response complies with Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, the motion to
compel a further response is denied.

Request No. 7 requests all “DOCUMENT[S] in YOUR possession that SUPPORT,
REFER, REFLECT and/or EVIDENCE any COMMUNICATION between YOU and
BERTOLINO regarding former customers or clients of PROVEN.” PIIB’s response was
identical to that in response to No. 6 and thus, the motion to compel is denied as to
No. 7 for the same reasons cited in the preceding paragraph.

Request No. 8 is essentially identical to No. 7 except that it asks for all
communications with Bertolino regarding current customers or clients of PROVEN. As
PIIB’s response was identical to No. 7, the motion to compel is also denied as to No. 8
for the same reasons.

Request No. 19 asks for all “DOCUMENT[S] that SUPPORT, REFER, REFLECT
and/or EVIDENCE Plaintiff’s TRADE SECRETS.” Although PIIB asserted various
objections (which are not entirely without merit), it stated that a diligent search was
made but PIIB is unable to comply with this request because, to the best of its
knowledge, responsive documents do not exist and never have existed. Since this
response complies with Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, the motion to compel a
further response is denied.

Request No. 20 is nearly identical in that it asks for “DOCUMENT[s] that SUPPORT,
REFER, REFLECT and/or EVIDENCE Plaintiff’s confidential information.” As PIIB’s
response was identical to that of No. 19, the motion is denied as to No. 20 for the
same reasons.

Request No. 21 asks for all “DOCUMENT[S] that SUPPORT, REFER, REFLECT
and/or EVIDENCE Plaintiff’s clients or customers.” After several objections, PIIB again
stated a diligent search was made but to the best of its knowledge, no responsive
documents have ever existed. This response complies with Code of Civil Procedure
§2031.230 and thus, there is no valid ground on which to compel a further response.

Request No. 38 seeks all “DOCUMENT[S] that SUPPORT, REFER, REFLECT and/or
EVIDENCE the total amount of money received by YOU, since January 1, 2012, by
reason of YOUR or BERTOLINO’S selling of insurance to any person identified in
response to Request For Production No. 37.” PIIB first asserted numerous objections
to this request but then stated that despite a diligent search, it is unable to comply
because responsive documents do not exist inasmuch as PIIB does not receive any
commissions on policies written by Bertolino. PIIB further explained that Bertolino
receives 100% of all commissions for policies written by it through PIIB’s companies.
Finding that PIIB’s response to No. 38 is code-compliant, the Court declines to compel
a further response to it.

Request No. 39 asks for all “DOCUMENT[S] that SUPPORT, REFER, REFLECT
and/or EVIDENCE the total amount of commission received by YOU since January 1,
2012 as a result of selling insurance to persons who were, at any time prior to January
1, 2012, customers of PROVEN.” After several objections, PIIB stated that it made a
diligent search but is unable to comply because PIIB is merely a “cluster” which is not
itself engaged directly in the business of selling insurance. PIIB further explained that
its broker agreement which was identified in its response to the requests for production
prohibits PIIB from engaging in the business of a retail insurance agency, and
therefore, to the best of its knowledge, responsive documents do have never existed.
Since this response conforms to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230, there is no valid
basis to compel a further response.

Forensic Exam of PIIB’s Computer System. The Court denies plaintiff’s request for
such an examination since no such relief was identified in plaintiff’s notice of motion
and since plaintiff has failed to establish the requisite “good cause” for such a
significant invasion of PIIB’s rights.

Since plaintiff’s motion was neither successful nor substantially justified under the
circumstances, PIIB is awarded monetary sanctions from plaintiff and its counsel in the
amount of $1,000 representing four (4) hours of attorney time at a reasonable hourly
rate of $250. Sanctions to be paid no later than 7/16/2014 and if not paid by that date,
defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions,
which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 18 34-2012-00129851

Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Michelman, Sanford L.

Plaintiff Inszone Insurance Services, Inc. dba Proven Insurance Services, Inc.’s
(“Proven”) motion to compel defendant Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. dba Pacific
Interstate Insurance Brokers’ (“PIIB”) further responses to special interrogatories, sets
one and two, is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 35-37 but DENIED as to
the remainder, as follows.

By this motion, Proven seeks PIIB’s further responses to special interrogatories, set
one, Nos. 6-16, 23-24, and 35 and to special interrogatories, set two, Nos. 36-37 and
46-49.

PIIB opposes the motion on various grounds but primarily that PIIB provided full,
complete responses to each of these interrogatories and that Proven has failed to
identify any legitimate basis for seeking further responses.

Special Interrogatories, Set One

Interrogatory No. 6: State whether YOU have acquired any DOCUMENT constituting
PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS following LOFRANO’s resignation from PROVEN on or
about April 11, 2012. Defendant PIIB’s supplemental response included numerous
objections including trade secret; relevance and not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence since the information sought is beyond plaintiff’s own trade secret
designation in this case; vague and ambiguous; not full and complete in and of itself
but requires reference to outside sources; attorney-client privilege and work product;
and Evidence Code §1152 but concluded with an unequivocal statement that PIIB
“has not acquired any of plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets.” The Court finds that the
objections are not meritless and that the substantive response is not only complete
and unequivocal but also in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220 et
seq. Plaintiff’s claim that PIIB’s response is “untrue,” even if correct, is simply not a
valid basis for compelling a further response. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to
this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 7: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that may constitute PROVEN’s
TRADE SECRETS that YOU have in YOUR possession, custody or control. PIIB
again asserted numerous objections including those cited above and given the
vagueness of this question (i.e., “DOCUMENTS that may constitute…TRADE
SECRETS), PIIB may well have been justified in refusing to provide any substantive
response at all. Regardless, PIIB ultimately responded by stating it “is not in
possession of any of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets.” Because this response is clear,
complete and in compliance with §2030.220 et seq., the motion must also be denied
as to interrogatory No. 7.

Interrogatory No. 8: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that may constitute lists of potential or
current insurance customers that YOU have prepared, used or reviewed of purposes
of selling insurance over the past two (2) years. Like interrogatory No. 7, this question
is poorly framed and PIIB’s asserted objections are justified. Still, PIIB unequivocally stated that it “has not prepared, used, or reviewed any lists of potential or current
customers for purposes of selling insurance.” This substantive response not only is
complete but also complies with the requirements of §2030.220 et seq. and as noted
above, plaintiff’s claim that PIIB’s response is “untrue,” even if correct, is not a valid
basis for compelling a further response. Therefore, the motion is denied as to
interrogatory No. 8.

Interrogatory No. 9: State whether YOU have acquired any information constituting
PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS following LOFRANO’s resignation from PROVEN on or
about April 11, 2012. Following an array of objections, PIIB responded that it “has not
acquired any of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets.” For the reasons cited above, the
motion is denied as to this interrogatory as well.

Interrogatory No. 10: IDENTIFY all information that may constitute PROVEN’s TRADE
SECRETS that YOU have in YOUR possession, custody or control. Like interrogatory
Nos. 7 and 8, this question is poorly framed and the objections asserted are not
without merit. Nevertheless, PIIB unequivocally stated that it “is not in possession of
any of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets.” Because this response is clear, complete and
in compliance with §2030.220 et seq., the motion is denied as to No. 10 particularly
since plaintiff’s claim that the response is “untrue” is not a valid basis for compelling a
further response.

Interrogatory No. 11: IDENTIFY all information that may constitute lists of potential or
current insurance customers that YOU have prepared, used or reviewed of purposes
of selling insurance over the past two (2) years. PIIB asserted several meritorious
objections to this vaguely phrased question but ultimately stated it “has not prepared,
used, or reviewed any lists of potential or current customers for purposes of selling
insurance.” For all the reasons cited above, the motion to compel is denied as to this
interrogatory as well.

Interrogatory No. 12: State all facts that relate to how the lists of potential or current
insurance customers used or referred to by YOU for the purposes of selling insurance
over the past two (2) years were developed or created. After several objections, PIIB
responded: “Not applicable based on [its] response[s] to Special Interrogatory Nos. 8
and 11.” Since PIIB has already stated that it has not prepared, used or reviewed any
customer lists in the last two years, the Court finds that the response to Interrogatory
12 is both appropriate and complete. As plaintiff has failed to identify any valid basis
for compelling a further response to this question, the motion to compel is denied as to
No. 12.

Interrogatory No. 13: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that may constitute lists of potential
or current insurance customers that YOU have prepared, used or reviewed for
purposes of selling insurance during the time period of April 11, 2012 to date. PIIB
objected to this question on various grounds including that it is “duplicative of Special
Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11, and it is thus intended solely to harass and annoy [PIIB].”
The Court finds that this interrogatory is effectively the same as No. 8 and PIIB’s
refusal to provide a second response is justified, mandating denial of this motion as to
No. 13.

Interrogatory No. 14: State all facts that refer or relate to how the lists of potential or
current insurance customers used or referred to by YOU for the purposes of selling
insurance during the time period of April 11, 2012 to date were developed or created. The motion is denied as to No. 14 since PIIB properly objected to it as being effectively
duplicative of Interrogatory No. 12.

Interrogatory No. 15: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have information concerning how
YOU developed, created or obtained any and all lists of potential or current insurance
customers used or referred to by YOU for the purposes of selling insurance during the
time period of April 11, 2012 to date. Aside from various meritorious objections, PIIB’s
response that this interrogatory is “[n]ot applicable based on [its] response[s] to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11 is appropriate and code-compliant. Finding no
valid basis for compelling a further response to No. 15, the motion is denied as to this
interrogatory as well.

Interrogatory No. 16: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to how YOU
obtained any and all lists of potential or current insurance customers used or referred
to by YOU for the purposes of selling insurance during the time period of April 11,
2012 to date. Again PIIB objected to this question on several grounds but also stated
that it is “Not applicable” in light of it responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11.
Therefore, the Court agrees with PIIB that its response here is both proper and
complete. Consequently, the motion is denied as to No. 16 too.

Interrogatory No. 23: State all facts that refer or relate to YOUR contention, if any, that
YOU have not used any of PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS since LOFRANO’s
resignation from PROVEN on or about April 11, 2012. Following an array of
objections, PIIB stated that it “does not possess, nor has it ever possessed, any of
Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets, nor has [PIIB] used Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets in
any way.” Since this response is conclusory and completely lacking in any specific
facts on which PIIB bases its contention it has not used any of plaintiff’s alleged trade
secrets, PIIB shall provide a further response to No. 23.

Interrogatory No. 24: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have information concerning
YOUR contention, if any, that YOU have not used any of PROVEN’s TRADE
SECRETS since LOFRANO’s resignation from PROVEN on or about April 11, 2012.
After numerous objections, PIIB identified Larry C. Manning, President. This answer is
not only complete and unequivocal but also in compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure §2030.220 et seq. Plaintiff’s claim that PIIB’s response is simply “untrue” is
not a valid basis for compelling a further response and thus, the motion is denied as to
this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 35: State all facts that refer or relate to YOUR contention, if any, that
PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS are available from public sources. PIIB cited several
objections but ultimately responded (1) it has never possessed Plaintiff’s alleged trade
secrets, (2) it “has no interest in locating or searching for any of Plaintiff’s alleged trade
secrets through publicly available sources, nor has [PIIB] ever attempted to do so,”
and (3) “The information consisting of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets can be found
from public sources, such as the Internet, trade directories, published lists from private
services and the like.” Although PIIB averred that it has never attempted to search for
Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets, this response seems to indicate otherwise since it also
represents that “the information consisting of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets can be
found from public sources, such as the Internet, trade directories, published lists from
private services and the like.” By the plain terms of this interrogatory, PIIB must
provide all facts on which this contention is based. Since PIIB failed to do so, a further
response shall be provided. Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Interrogatory No. 36: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have information concerning
YOUR contention, if any, that PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS are available from public
sources. PIIB asserted various objections but ultimately responded: “Not applicable
based on [PIIB’s] response to…Interrogatory No. 35.” Since the Court has concluded
PIIB’s response to No. 35 is insufficient, a further response to No. 36 shall also be
provided for the reasons cited above in connection with No. 35.

Interrogatory No. 37: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR
contention, if any, that PROVEN’s TRADE SECRETS are available from public
sources. PIIB’s response here was identical to No. 36 and thus, a further response to
No. 37 shall be provided for the same reasons.

Interrogatory No. 46: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to each
PERSON to whom YOU have sold insurance during the period of April 11, 2012 to
date that had previously been a PROVEN CUSTOMER. After an array of objections,
PIIB responded: “Not applicable based on Defendant’s Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 44.” Interrogatory 44 asked for all facts which refer or relate to each
PERSON who was once a PROVEN CUSTOMER to whom YOU have sold insurance
since April 2012 and PIIB, after several objections, responded: “None; Defendant has
not sold insurance to any person during [the relevant period] that was once a PROVEN
CUSTOMER.” Since PIIB has stated that it has not sold insurance since April 2012 to
any former customer of plaintiff and since the latter has failed to identify any deficiency
in PIIB’s response to Interrogatory 44, the Court finds PIIB’s response to No. 46 to be
both complete and code-compliant. Thus, the motion to compel is denied as to No. 46
as well.

Interrogatory No. 47 seeks all facts which refer or relate to the total amount of money
received by PIIB by reason of its selling of insurance after April 2012 to any PERSON
who had previously been a PROVEN CUSTOMER, while Nos. 48 and 49 ask for the
identity of all persons with knowledge of and documents reflecting the amount of
money received from former customers of plaintiff. The motion to compel further
responses to Nos. 47-49 is denied for the same reasons as No. 46.

Where the motion to compel is granted, PIIB shall provide verified further responses,
without additional objections, to plaintiff’s special interrogatories no later than
6/30/2014.

Since the bulk of plaintiff’s motion was unsuccessful and was not substantially justified
under the circumstances, PIIB is awarded monetary sanctions from plaintiff and its
counsel in the amount of $1,250 representing five (5) hours of attorney time at a
reasonable hourly rate of $250. Sanctions to be paid no later than 7/16/2014 and if not
paid by that date, defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order
granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland
v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Link to this page

Copy the code below to your web site.

Legal News

Inszone Insurance Services Inc vs. Dustin Lofrano

Leave a Reply