Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Orange County court records we believe plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Keesal, Young, and Logan, which was being sanctioned $2500.

30-2012-00600075

Motion by Defendant McIntosh Labs for Order Compelling Deposition from Plaintiff Irvine Development Company, LTD.:

The court grants the motion.

A. Deposition:

As to the deposition and its location, McIntosh is entitled to take the deposition of Plaintiff’s PMK in California. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.250, subds. (b), (d).)

The deposition notice sets forth 12 PMK subjects, which concern Plaintiff’s business, the subject contract and communications between Plaintiff and Digital Ear, and/or Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff did not object to any of the subject matter categories in its Objections, nor did it file an opposition to this motion. The court thus orders Plaintiff to produce individual(s) on all 12 subjects set forth in the deposition notice.

B. Documents requested:

McIntosh has established good cause for the production of the documents requested. Specifically, McIntosh claims it had no dealings with Plaintiff in connection with Plaintiff’s equipment order from Digital Ear. Digital Ear has defaulted in this action, so McIntosh has no other means but to ask Plaintiff for this information.

In addition to general objections of privilege and confidentiality, Plaintiff makes a combination of the following specific objections to the categories: overboard and unduly burdensome with respect to timeframe; relevance; and/or vague and ambiguous.

As to Plaintiff’s general objections, they are improper, as they must be specific. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); see Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Aamazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513 [objecting party subject to sanctions for boilerplate objections].) As for the specific objections, once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify the objections that are no based on a claim of privilege or attorney work product. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to justify its objections.

C. Sanctions

The court issues sanctions of $2,500 against Plaintiff Irvine Development Company, LTD. and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, for failing to make discovery, payable within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving Party to serve notice of this order.